Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2(h)–Constitutional petition–Contract awarded to person through negotiation and not through public auction–Such exercise was patently male fide and without jurisdiction and contract awarded to such person was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. PLJ 1999 Karachi 28
S 37(2)(d) Contention, that petitioner voluntarily resigned and neither removed nor retired from service, therefore two years bar would not apply to him – Though could be retired on superannuation or removed for misconduct only-Held : a person could retire from service by voluntarily submitting his resignation Having resigned the bar contained in S. 37 (2) (d) would he applicable to him. P L J 1981 Karachi 5
S. 12–Union Council–Bifurcation of–Challenge to–Whether it was necessary to publish notification in newspaper besides its publication in Sindh Gazette–Question of–No provision of law has been pointed out showing that besides Gazette Notification, notice should have also been published in a newspaper–Apart from publication of notice in official gazette, enough publicity was given to said notification–Held: Publication of notice under Section 12 of Ordinance inviting objections, in newspapers is not legal requirement–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1993 Karachi 16
S. 37 (2) (d)-Words and Phrases ‘.Retirement or Removal”-Words have not been used in Ordinance in any technical sense-They are to he construed in then ordinary hearings as given in dictionaries. P L J 1981 Karachi 5
S. 45(4)–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2(h)–Constitutional petition–Octroi contract–Failure to perform essential part of contract–Effect–Petitioner having been awarded contract, he was required to deposit 5 per cent. of contractual amount but he failed to do so–Petitioner could not claim that such contract could not be awarded to anybody without notice to him. PLJ 1999 Karachi 28
S. 45(4)–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 2(h)–Constitutional petition—Octroi contract–Petitioner was awarded contract but he was required to deposit specified amount by specified date–Petitioner failed to deposit the same–Respondent decided to grant one more opportunity to petitioner to deposit requisite amount and further decided that in the event of his failure, contract would be re-auctioned and in pursuance thereto public notice was issued for specified date–Such decision having been taken and implemented through public notice, respondent was bound to wait till specified date to enable petitioner to make such deposit and in the event of his failure proceed with re-auction on the date specified in that notice. PLJ 1999 Karachi 28
S. 45(4) [as inserted through Sindh Local Government (Second Amendment) Act (II of 1992)]–Constitutional petition–Contract made with highest bidder on basis of comparative bids in open auction–Such contract would not need approval of Government–Approval of Government would be necessary only when for some reasons highest bid was not accepted. PLJ 1999 Karachi 28
S. 45(4) [as inserted through Sindh Local Government (Second Amendment) Act (II of 1992)I—Constitutional petition–Administrative guidelines relating to octroi contract requiring approval of Government in all cases including cases of open auction–Validity–Such stipulation in guidelines or even in rules would be ultra vires viz. Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and would be of no legal effect. PLJ 1999 Karachi 28
S. 56,57&58–Town Committee–Supercession of–Challenge to–No period has been mentioned in notification for which Town Committee has been superceded–No enquiry was held and objections were not invited before issuing impugned notification–No show cause was issued to Members of Council nor petitioner was heard before issuing impugned notification–Held: Impugned notification superseding Town Committee Mirpur Mathelo, was passed without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect–Petition accepted. PLJ 1992 Karachi 34
S. 58(2) read with Sections 56 and 57–Town Committee-Chairman of–Appointment of Administrator–Challenge to–A bare perusal of sections 56, 57 and 58 of Ordinance, makes it quite clear that before Government proposes to supersede a Council, it is obligatory upon it to hold an enquiry as required by section 56(1) or Section 58(1)–No such enquiry was held in this case–Petitioner having not been heard, even fundamental principles of natural justice have been violated–Held: Action taken by respondent No. 3 on telephonic orders of respondent No. 1 and impugned notification are in violation of legal provisions, without jurisdiction and non-existent in eyes of law–Petition accepted. PLJ 1991 Karachi 358
S. 62(2)–Levy of Tax–Direction of–Challenge to–S. 62(2) of Ord. 1979 requires that direction issued by Chief Executive of Council shall be given effect to by issuing a notification in terms of direction which should be before or on date which is specified in direction, therefore, issuing of notification is a necessary condition for giving effect to direction–All directions/orders/decisions made by Chief Executive are published in official Gazette–If such directions are not published in official Gazette, those cannot be levied–Publication is made in order to notify the public about octroi rate and to provide an authentic document for their use–Impugned direction of levying tax not published in official Gazette–Held: Void–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1998 SC 472