1989SCMR736 (PLP)
INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR736 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR736 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR736 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR736 (PLP) (INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ata Ullah Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1988.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-10-1982, in I.CA. No.77 of 1982).
S. 3--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Intra-Court Appeal- Authority to award contract by ousting petitioner from the contest through tenders, challenged--Perusal of Constitutional petition riled in High Court and trend of arguments noted in the judgment of Single Judge support the petitioner- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether Intra-Court Appeal Bench should not have resolved the controversy by examining the merits of the main pleas raised by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner's I.C.A. The petitioners had, in the context of grant of contract, challenged the power of the respondent authorities to grant the same to a selected' party. In other words, the petitioners' ouster, from the main contest through tenders, was challenged. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The learned I.CA. Bench dismissed the appeal also on the ground that the previous contract proceedings having been completed, the petitioners would be entitled to challenge similar future threatened action. Accordingly, the I.CA. was dismissed. The learned ‑counsel has contended that the contract mentioned in the writ petition was not the only dispute raised by the petitioners. They had also challenged the authority to award a contract by ousting the petitioners from the contest through tenders. A perusal of the writ petition filed in the High Court and trend of the arguments noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge support the learned A counsel. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal so as to examine whether the I.CA. Bench should not have resolved the controversy by examining the merits of the main please raised by the petitioners. Security Rs.10,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to add all necessary documents. AA./I‑60/S Leave to appeal granted.