Sections 42 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXXX, R1 and 2 of the Suit Declaration and Interim Order of Lokos Penitentiary for Contracting, the Contract Principle applicable to the collection of taxes, not the bidder, the plaintiff Participated in the right bid and the tax collection agreement on various subjects was later introduced by the defendant and intended to contract it, because it offered a higher bid than the plaintiff so that the plaintiff got a good case. Went, because he had taken charge of this charge from the 7th 7th of 2011 and in his pursuit of the tax, the plaintiff has still to pay all the powers of the authorities. The matter was submitted, therefore, the balance was also in favor of the plaintiff being a registered contractor and participating in the auction proceedings and after the compliance of all the codes, the contract was successful. After decisive action to issue a work order, valuable rights were gathered in favor of the plaintiff and after assuming charge by the plaintiff, his authority could not be exercised by the authority on the principle of locus pentinci. He had been collecting tax for months and unanimous taxation and thus relinquished the responsibility of the contract. The defendant had a colorful exercise of power and the High Court on any basis refused to approve it, while almost half of the plaintiff's contract had already expired, thus excluding him from his position. The image of the key will be corrupted. The professional contractor, due to someone who has not participated in the auction proceedings at all, causes an irreparable loss to the plaintiff's goodwill and will have to pay the money
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
