Find a Lawyer

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus RAJA MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN

Article 32 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 4 and 25 Contract sanctions confirm the return of the Ombudsman to the Security Ombudsman and confirm the claim for the Federal Content Scope Respondent Contractor's Approved Applicant (Capital Development Authority) In connection with the latter, the flats that failed to execute the contract within the stipulated timeframe were recovered by the applicant who seized the amount of security deposited by the respondent. Respondent filed a complaint with the Federal Ombudsman for the return of the security deposit, while the factual respondent partially accepted the complaint and asked the applicant on 7-9 1988 to consider the defendant's claim about the return of the security claim. Said but rejected for growing claim. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Federal Ombudsman on 31.10 1988 against the result which was dismissed but the second review petition filed by the plaintiff was accepted by the Federal Ombudsman 149 1994 and the President of Pakistan. After rejecting the applicant's representation on behalf of the respondents, claiming to be an increase in the claim, the Federal Ombudsman directed the applicant to execute his order dated 14 199 1994, which was legal The status was suspended in a constitutional petition filed on 14 9 1994. Applicant before the High Court, who was dismissed on technical grounds because neither the President of Pakistan nor the Federation was imposed as a party in the same petition, which led to the High Court being investigated on that basis. That the High Court had earlier agitated best law firm from Kotmomin lawyer