Khalid Rauf and Co. vs. Government of Punjab and Others

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. having its office at 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore through its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Khalid Rauf. .Petitioner

VERSUS1. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Communications and Work Department, old Anarkali Lahore. 2. Director General, Lahore Development Authority, LDA Plaza Egerton Road Lahore. 3. Chief Traffic Engineer TEPA, LDA, 4-C, Layton Road, Lahore.4. PDPMU Project Management Unit, Project Manager Lahore Ring Road Project, 37-A, Al-Noor Centre, Township, PECO Road, Lahore.5. Chief Engineer Highway Punjab, 2-Lake Road, Lahore. .Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Respectfully Sheweth:

1.That the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the title of the petition for the services of processes which may be issued by this Honble Court from time to time.

2.That the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of Pakistan having its registered office at 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore and this petition is being filed through Mr. Khalid Rauf who is duly authorized representative of the petitioner and is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is duly authorized by resolution of board of directors dated 24/08/2008 to sign, verify and institute these proceedings and do such other acts which are necessary and incidental thereto. (Copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association are attached as Annex A & B) (Copy of the board resolution is attached as Annex C)3.That the brief issue involved in this case is that the petitioner, who is a highly reputed company involved in the business of providing services of engineering and construction of highways and bridges for the past 32 years, has been blacklisted for future projects by the respondent No.3 on the behest of respondent No.2. This so-called blacklisting of the petitioner has been done by the respondents absolutely contrary to the law, against the judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, without show cause notice and any enquiry, in contravention of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract, arbitrarily, unlawful and for malafide reasons. In this writ petition the action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner has been challenged. 4.The facts forming the background of this writ petition are narrated below: -BRIEF FACTS(i) That the petitioner is involved in the business of providing services of engineering and construction of highways and bridges for the past 32 years. In its business history the petitioner has successfully completed the engineering and construction on projects worth billions of rupees. These include recently completed/near completion mega projects like Lahore Ring Road (Package 3) Construction of Road Portion from Niazi Chowk to Bund Road, Lahore (for Rs.2472 Million); Lahore Ring Road (Package-1) Construction of Interchange at Niazi Chowk, Lahore (for Rs.644 Million); Construction of Lahore-Sheikhupura-Faisalabad Dual Carriageway (BOT Project) (For Rs.1200 Million); Dualization of G.T. Road from Daroghawala to Wahgha Border (for 577 Million Rupees). Owing to the reputation and good work of the petitioner the petitioner is a no limit contactor and has contributed to the national exchequer by depositing a tax of approximately 133.82 million in the last financial year 2007-2008. It is a record of the petitioner that the petitioner has never breached any contract with the Government of Punjab during its entire 32 years of doing business. (Copy of petitioners profile with a list of its achievements is attached as Annex D)(ii) That the petitioner owing to its reputation was awarded the contract for improvement and rehabilitation of Maulna Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road (Chungi Amer Sidhu) on 14/05/2008 which included the construction of a dual carriage. The petitioner agreed to complete the project for a sum of Rs30,25,15,421/. The acceptance of the work was done on 26/06/2008 and the work was commenced within 3 days thereof on 29/08/2008. The project was to be completed within four months on 29/10/2008. The petitioner after commencing this work continued to execute the work as per the specifications and timeline contained in the aforesaid contract. At the commencement of construction of works, the petitioner also duly gave all notices and warnings of safety and took all precautionary measures for the safety and convenience of the public. (Copy of the Contract, Acceptance letter, site drawings are attached as Annex E, F & G) (iii)That it is pertinent to mention here that the contract had an engineer in-charge who duly verified and monitored works including the precautionary measures which were undertaken by the petitioner on the site. The respondents never complained or required the petitioner to increase the number of notice board warnings etc. and this was because the petitioner had already duly fulfilled all those requirements. The respondent No.3 was fully satisfied with the performance of the petitioner regarding the fulfillment of safety requirements. As proof of the fact that the petitioner had done what is necessary, the petitioner is attaching some photographs taken at the relevant time as (Copies of the photographs are attached as Annex H/1 to H/3 respectively). (iv)That on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 the city of Lahore experienced one of the heaviest rainfalls in its near history (the estimated rainfall was about between 38mm to 48 mm which rainfall has not taken place for 12 years). The rainfall started in the morning and by the afternoon most parts of the city were inundated with and under water. The site at which the petitioner was carrying on the works was also similarly fully submerged in 4 to 5 feet of water. The entire surrounding area of the site was also completely submerged to the extent that it was impossible to determine the location of the road, the green belt and the drain. At about 4:00 pm on this day a person by the name of Amir Iqbal tried to cross the work side (which was closed for traffic from both sides, due to construction work) on Maula Shaukat Ali Road, near Satu-katla over bridge from one end to the other. As he was crossing, he slipped and in the process drowned at some point. It is possible that he may have swept by the water, struck a boundary wall of the under construction drain pipe and fallen in the muddy waters. A rescue attempt was made but the accident proved fatal. The death was obviously unfortunate but accidental and due to no fault of any person. The warning signs and precautionary measures were available at the site albeit many of the warning signs may have been submerged. The work had been going on since June 2008 and every person in the locality knows that the site is under construction and is therefore dangerous. The rain waters were unexpected and created further danger which would have normally not present and the unfortunate person opted voluntarily on his own to try and cross in that situation. In spite of not being at fault, the petitioner voluntarily gave a heavy compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased who were fully satisfied and have given in writing to the petitioner and have also made a statement to this effect before the relevant magistrate that the petitioner is not to blame and that this was a purely accidental death. (Copy of the statement of the father of the deceased is attached as Annex I)(v)That however it appears that for some reason the respondents are bent upon canceling the existing contracts of petitioner for the purposes of awarding fresh contracts to their own favoured contractors. The respondents were looking for an excuse and as soon as the occurrence was reported in the press, the petitioner, without enquiry and without any show cause, declared and decided that the petitioner is guilty and ordered that the petitioner be blacklisted for future projects. (vi)That in this connection it is very interesting to note that the respondent No.3 at the behest of the respondent No.2 evidently drafted and wrote, but never sent a letter No CTE/TEPA/LDA/572 dated 15/08/2008 addressed to the petitioner stating that due to non-compliance of the Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 20 of the contract a Pedestrian drowned into the rain water and died and hence why not action should be taken against the petitioner for gross negligence. This letter was delivered to the petitioner on 18/08/2008. Without waiting for any response from the petitioner or giving an opportunity of hearing or defense to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 then issued another letter dated 17/08/2008 (which happened to be a Sunday) when the respondents were not even working, stating that since no response has been received from the petitioner to the previous letter dated 15/08/2008 (which letter was never even sent till 18/08/200) therefore this office presumes that you have nothing to say at your end, accordingly, you are hereby blacklisted for future projects. (Copies of letter dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are attached as Annex J & K)(vii)That the said letter of 17/08/2008 was also delivered to the petitioner at 4 pm on 18/08/2008 (which was merely few hours after the delivery of letter dated 15/08/2008). It is submitted that the manner in which the petitioner has been blacklisted as narrated above, without giving an opportunity of hearing and by trying to camouflage as if a show cause notice has been given, smacks of malafide apparent on the face of the record. The Peon book of 16/08/2008 of TEPA is clear evidence of this illegality. (Copy of the Peon book of TEPA is attached as Annex L/1 & L/2).viii)That the petitioner vide letter No.KRC/4147 dated 21/08/2008 and letter No.KRC/4148 dated 22/08/2008 duly responded to the letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 but to no avail, hence this writ petition. (Copies of the letters are Annex M/1 to M/8 & N/1 to N/9)(ix)That the respondent No.6 have initiated a smear campaign in the media against the petitioner and in this regard huge advertisements have been published on the front pages of the newspapers (Jang, Nawa-i-waqt and Khabrain) stating that the petitioner has been black listed for his negligence in the incident of 12th August, 2008. The respondent No.6 has also made a completely false statement that it paid a compensation of Rs.500,000/- to the deceased. In fact the compensation was paid by the petitioner in order to alleviate the loss of the legal heirs of the deceased victim. (Copies of the advertisements in Jang and Nawa-i-waqt are attached as Annex O & P)

(x)That the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to participate in the bidding/tendering of other projects of the government department merely due to the illegal and unwarranted blacklisting letter of 17/08/2008. The livelihood of the petitioner is in jeopardy now. (xi)That this and shall be a subject matter of separate legal proceedings, it is pertinent to mention here that in pursuance of the agenda to cancel all the contracts of the petitioner the respondent No.3 on behalf of respondents No.2 has also issued cancellation notices regarding the following projects of the petitioner: -

a) Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road (Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore RD 0+000 to 3+500) (Section-I) vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

b) Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road (Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore RD 3+500 to 5+600) (Section-II) vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

c) Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road (Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore (Link Road-Jail Road to Ferozepur Road via Katcha Jail Road) (Section-III) vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

d) Notice on Improvement & Remodeling of Khurshid Alam Road from Shami Road to R.A. Bazar Lahore Cantt. vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

e) Notice on Improvement of Shami Road from Khalid Butt Chowk vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

f) Notice on Construction of Pedestrian Overhead Bridge infront of Kinnaird College Jail Road, Lahore vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

(Copies of the notices are attached as Annex Q/1 to Q/6)(xii)That it is also pertinent to mention here that in order to pressurize the petitioner the respondent No.3 has also filed an FIR No.721/2008 inter alia against the petitioner. Petitioner is contesting that FIR in accordance with law. It is submitted that the FIR is also likely to be disproved against the petitioner accordingly. Infact the legal heirs have filed statements and affidavits in various proceedings which testify that the petitioner is not guilty. (Copy of order of Judl Magistrate in the bail petition of co accused Abdul Rab and Mazhar Abbas, recording the statements of heirs of deceased before Judl Magistrate Model Town are attached as Annex R) (Copies of affidavit and of heirs of deceased in Abdul Rab case are attached as Annex S/1 to S/5) (Receipt of compensation as Annex T) (Copy of the FIR is attached as Annex U) (Copies of the affidavits of legal heirs of deceased in case of State vs Saif Rehman & Khalid Rauf etc are attached as Annex V/1 to V/6) 5.That briefly the letters dated 15/08/2008 giving show cause notice and the blacklisting letter dated 17/08/2008 are illegal and liable to be set aside inter alia on the following:Grounds

A) That both letters dated 15/08/2008 (giving so called show notice) and letter dated 17/08/2008 (the blacklisting letter) were delivered to the petitioner within few hours on 18/08/2008. This means that the petitioner was never given a show cause notice in law and the black listing was done in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and against the principles of natural justice. This also shows that the decision of blacklisting had already been done and the show cause notice was a mere formality. On this ground alone the show cause notice is illegal and liable to be declared as such by this Honble Court. B)That even if it is assumed that the show cause notice was issued on 15/08/2008 which is a Friday and received by the petitioner on the same day, the letter does not disclose or specify as to within what time the reply or defense has to be presented by the petitioner. In these circumstances the law has to presume that the petitioner has reasonable time within which to respond. The petitioner was thereafter issued a blacklisting letter on 17/08/2008 which is a Sunday and which clearly shows that there was no opportunity of showing cause available to the petitioner. The petition has been condemned unheard. As the blacklisting is a punishment in law it cannot be awarded without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The decision on the face of it is against the principal of natural justice. The respondent in this respect had apparently decided that the petitioner was guilty and did not even bother for a reply. The respondent No.3 was obviously acting under the directions and authority of respondent No.2 and hence did not have the freedom of mind or the courage to follow the law and deny the illegal demand or orders of his superior. Not only on this ground is the action of blacklisting illegal but also exemplary damages need to be imposed on the respondents for such blatant violation of the law.C)That the letters of 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are contradictory and self-defeating. In the letter dated 15/08/2008 the petitioner has been given an opportunity to show a cause, whereas under 17/08/2008 that opportunity has been taken away and blacklisting is being done without giving any such opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that the blacklisting being contrary to the earlier dated 15/08/2008 is liable to be set aside. D)That even on merits the case of the petitioner has to be fully adjudicated and it is only if the petitioner is at fault or negligence that action against the petitioner in accordance with the contract be taken. This Honble Court is not required of course in this writ petition to adjudicate upon the merits of the event of 12/08/2008 but with respect it is submitted that even the reference to Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 20 in the letter dated 15/08/2008 are not relevant. Clause 13 provides that lightening is to be provided in case night work is carried on. The unfortunate event took place at 4:00 pm and hence there was no issue of light which is in any case was provided. Clause 13.2 states that the contractor will maintain at its own cost of all caution boards etc. as and when required by the engineer in charge for the protection of the workers or for the safety and convenience of the public. This was duly done but the accident happened in spite of these warnings. Clause 14 provides that the contractor is to ensure that unfinished work is not damaged in the case of weather condition. Clause 14 accordingly does not have relevance. Clause 15 of the contract provides that the contractor is to supply his own materials and plant and machinery as may be required by the engineer and that the contractor will provide all fencing and lights required to protect the public from accident and shall be bound to bear expenses on the action by any person injured and pay damages to such a person. Petitioner did provide all fencing and lights required to protect the public from accidents. In fact the fence provided around the drainage work was made of proper bricks. It was apparently because the entire site was submerged with rain water and because the unfortunate person decided to take the risk of going through the water that no fencing or other warning could prevent his injury and death. In fact Clause 16 negates the very basis of blacklisting because it specifies that in case any action is brought for an injury due to petitioners negligence then the petitioner would defend such a case and pay damages, if necessary. The contract no where provides that the petitioner would be declared guilty by the respondents or blacklisted even though the petitioner has not been sued by the injured party and the petitioners negligence has not been proved in the court of law. As stated above, in this case, the legal heirs of the deceased have stated on oath and confirmed that the accident was not the fault of the petitioner but was purely an accident of circumstances and the petitioner has also compensated them in any case voluntarily. Hence there is no violation of Clause 15 as well. Clause 17 provides that the contractor shall provide skilled engineers and technical engineers, which has no relevancy to this case.

From the perusal of the above clauses it is obvious that the action of blacklisting the petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid clauses, is on the face of it wrong and illegal.E) That even if it is assumed that the petitioner was negligent, the contract does not provide for the petitioner to be blacklisted by the respondents. To the contrary the contract and the law is that if the petitioner has committed a breach of the contract and not provided the safety requirements then the respondents are required under the law to first demand from the petitioner to rectify the breach and provide the necessary safety structures and if the petitioner thereafter fails to do so then the respondents can issue notice for termination of the contract in accordance with the requisite clause. The contract further provides that in case the petitioner disputes that allegation of breach or termination then the petitioner can take the matter to arbitration and it is only the award of the arbitration finally in accordance with law which can then be the final decision with respect to their dispute. The contract no where provided that the respondent can simply, on the executive side, only because it is the Government, ignore the contract and declare the petitioner blacklisted. It is well-established by the superior courts of Pakistan that the Government is as bound by the contracts and more so than the private individuals and cannot act arbitrarily. The action of blacklisting the petitioner without following the provisions of the contract amounts to arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers which is liable to be set aside by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.F. That it is a fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 that no one can be condemned unheard and no ones business can be curtailed or restricted except in accordance with law. It is submitted that petitioner has invested hundreds of million in the construction business which shall be ruined due to the arbitrary and capricious nature of respondents actions. It is the petitioners business to provide services for engineering and construction of roads and highways and by blacklisting the petitioner from future projects in this illegal manner the respondents are violating the Constitution.G.That it is now well established in various judgments and decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the various High Courts that all public authorities and functionaries, in their dealing with citizens of the country, have to be fair, transparent, just and above-board. An equally well established principle of law is that all public authorities and functionaries must not use powers in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner. By blacklisting the petitioner, the respondents have exercised their powers in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner. Hence this writ petition. H.That the public functionaries, deriving their authority from or under law, are obligated to act justly, fairly, equitably, reasonably, without any element of discrimination and squarely within the parameters of law, and if their actions are contrary to the above, such actions are amenable to judicial review, hence this writ petition. The action of blacklisting the petitioner is illegal because these principles of law have been violated. 7.That the petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid illegal, unlawful and malafide conduct/scheme of the respondents for which no other adequate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, hence, this writ petition. Since the case involves the enforcement of fundamental rights and blatant violation of the law by an authority which is considered itself above all legal requirements and has taken the law to its own hands, and because this august High Court is custodian of such fundamental and private rights of the people, this petition is only proper remedy available to the petitioner in these circumstances.

PRAYERIn view of the circumstances mentioned above it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2007 may kindly be declared to be illegal and accordingly be set aside. It be directed that the respondents shall take no further action in respect of the blacklisting on the basis of the letter dated 15/08/2008 or 17/08/2008. It is further prayed that it be declared that the petitioner is not blacklisted for any of its ongoing projects, or for which the petitioner has been pre-qualified as well as any future projects with the respondents. The respondents be further directed that petitioners may be allowed to participate in tenders/bidding for government projects without any let and hindrance.

It is also further prayed that the respondents be directed not to take any action against the petitioner in respect of the incident.It is further prayed that the ongoing projects of the petitioner may not be cancelled rescinded or cancelled on the basis of illegal blacklisting letter dated 17/08/2008. It is further prayed that respondents may be directed to continue making payments, including running bills, in respect of the on going contracts strictly in accordance with the respective contracts. Any other relief deemed to be just and fair may kindly also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER

Through:

Syed Ali Zafar

Bar-at-law

CC. No. PLH No.234

Zahid Nawaz Cheema

Advocate High Court

CC. No. PLH No.2385

Muhammad Saqib Jillani

Advocate High Court

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Advocates

Zafar Chambers

Aziz Avenue,

Canal Bank, Gulberg-V

Lahore

CERTIFICATE1.As per instructions, this is the first petition in this Honble Court on the subject.

2.The petition has been arisen out of the violation and non-fulfillment of the provisions of law and the petitioner has no other efficacious and speedy remedy at the moment.

Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others.Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Affidavit of:Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.That the above named deponent has filed accompanying writ petition before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.That the contents of the accompanying writ petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed thereof.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore on this day of August 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENTIN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008

In

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others

.RespondentsAPPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF.Respectfully Sheweth:

1.That the petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition the contents whereof for the sake of convenience and brevity may kindly be read as an integral part of this application.

2. The petitioner has a strong prima facie case and there is very likelihood of its success.

3. The balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of the petitioner.

4. That the respondents are unduly harassing the petitioner by threatening to stop the petitioner from working on its on going projects and in this regard a malicious campaign has also been initiated by the respondents in the print media. The respondents actions are not only causing financial losses to the petitioner, but his reputation is being immensely tarnished.

5. That in case the interim relief is not granted, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.6. That if the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are not suspended and the respondents are not directed to stop their malicious campaign, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. PRAYER

It is respectfully prayed that in pending the disposal of the subject writ petition the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 may kindly be suspended and the respondents be directed to immediately halt their smear campaign against the petitioner. It is further prayed that the respondent be directed not to take any further action against the petitioner till the disposal of the titled writ petition. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents may be directed to continue making payments, including running bills, in respect of the on going contracts strictly in accordance with the respective contracts.

Pending disposal of this petition an ad interim relief in the above manner may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.

Any other relief deemed to be just and fair may kindly also be granted to the petitioner/applicant in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER/APPLICANTThrough:

Syed Ali Zafar

Bar-at-law

CC. No. PLH No.234

Zahid Nawaz Cheema

Advocate High Court

CC. No. PLH No.2385

Muhammad Saqib Jillani

Advocate High Court

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Advocates

Zafar Chambers,

7/B-1, Aziz Avenue,

Canal Bank, Gulberg-V

Lahore

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008

In

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others

.RespondentsAPPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF.

Affidavit of:Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.That the above named deponent has filed accompanying application for stay before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.That the contents of the accompanying application for stay are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed thereof.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ day of August 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENTIN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008

In

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others

.RespondentsAPPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. TO DISPENSE WITH FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES WITH THE WRIT PETITION.

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition in which no date of hearing has been fixed so far.

2. That the petitioner has annexed certain uncertified copies alongwith the titled petition.

3. That the petitioner is making serious efforts to secure the certified copies of the said documents and shall place the same on record as and when the same are made available to the applicant and till then the uncertified copies placed on the file may be taken into consideration.

It view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that the present application may be allowed and the certified copy may be dispensed for the time being and the copies already placed on file may kindly be taken into consideration.

PETITIONER

Through:

Counsel

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Zafar Chambers

7/B-1, Aziz Avenue

Canal Bank, Gulberg-V

Lahore

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008

In

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others

.Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. TO DISPENSE WITH FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES WITH THE WRIT PETITION.

Affidavit of:Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.That the above named deponent has filed accompanying application for stay before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.That the contents of the accompanying application for stay are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed thereof.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ day of August 2008 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENTIN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd

.Petitioner

VERSUSGovernment of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others

.RespondentsINDEX

S.No.Description of DocumentsDatedAnnexurePages

1.Ground of writ petition alongwith affidavit1-16

2.Memorandum and Articles of AssociationA&B17-34

3.Copy of Board ResolutionC35-36

4.Copy of petitioners profile with a list of its achievementsD37-47

5.Copy of the ContractE48-113

6.Acceptance letterF114-116

7.Site drawingsG117-137

8.Copies of the photographsH/1 to H/3138-140

9.Copy of the statement of the father of the deceasedI141-142

10.Letter from Respondent No.3 dated 15/08/2008 J143

11.Letter from respondent no.3 dated 17/08/2008 K144

12.Copy of the Peon book of TEPA16/08/2008L/1 & L/2145-146

13.Letter No.KRC/4147 dated 21/08/2008 from the petitionerM/1 to M/8147-155

14.Letter No.KRC/4148 dated 22/08/2008 from the petitionerN/1 to N/9156-169

15.Copy of the advertisement in Jang O170

16.Copy of the advertisement in Nawa-i-waqt P171

17.Copies of the notices issued by the respondent 22/08/2008Q/1 to Q/6172-177

18.Copy of order of Judl. Magistrate in bail petition of co accused Abdul Rab and Mazhar Abbas, recording the statements of heirs of deceased before Judl Magistrate Model Town R178-182

19.Copies of affidavits of heirs of deceased in Abdul Rab caseS/1 to S/5178-192

20.Receipt of compensationT193

21.Copy of the FIRU194-195

22.Copies of the affidavits of legal heirs of deceased in case of State vs Saif Rehman & Khalid Rauf etcV/1 to V/6196-207

23.Application to dispense with filing of certified copies of annexures with the writ petition alongwith affidavit208-209

24.Interim Application alongwith affidavit210-213

25.Power of Attorney

PETITIONER

Through:

COUNSEL

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Zafar Chambers

7/B-I, Aziz Avenue,

Canal Bank Gulberg-V,

Lahore