CHOHAN BROTHERS THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR versus NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN
Article 199 Constitutional Appeal Agreement, Judicial Review Award, Applicant's complaint was that the contract given by the authorities was tainted with garland and was not transparent, in carrying out public interest works by state officials. Be fair, fair, transparent, reasonable. And public works under or under the law shall be free, fair, equitable, equitable, reasonable, without discrimination, and guarded within the parameters of the law. Was obliged to, if the deviation applies in the given situation, the material can be corrected through appropriate orders; under Article 199 of the constitution, the authorities failed to state why the applicant's proposed bid was accepted in the first tender. Neither the Authorized Authorities can specify that the applicant is not subject to the bids of all other parties. Ah Why hidden? Were already rejected and all were informed that they would tender the Andetti again, failing to explain why the respondents were awarded the contract without having to call the tender in the newspapers again. The action of the authorities and the first work order was declared without legal authority and without any legal effect, the High Court directed the authorities to award the tenders in the newspapers. Was \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
