Find a Lawyer

HAJI GHULAM MEHDI versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GILGIT-BALTISTAN

Article 60 (13) Applicants were charged with pre-contract qualification that the respondents who were deposed at better prices were not already eligible to be registered under the influence of the relevant authority who applied. Regardless of the nature of the charge listed. Inquiries had already been passed, the inquiry officer should consider the issue of transparency and dynamic advance payment besides transparency, despite the fact that another case had already been pending by the Supreme Court. Pending. Requirement of the contractor's registration for advance eligibility with the relevant authority can also be seen, and the inquiry should be completed within a fortnight. The Supreme Court Chief Justice's decision was denied, appeal was denied.

Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010

• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan v. KHALID MEHMOOD 2010 GBLR 335
• OFFICER COMMANDING 182 PETROLEUM STORAGE PLATOON ARMY SERVICE JUGLOT, GILGIT v. ALI MUHAMMAD 2010 GBLR 336
• MUHAMMAD AMIN BALGHARI v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT 2010 GBLR 340
• Lt.-Col. ARSHAD MEHMOOD CH. v. KIU 2010 GBLR 341
• JUMMA SYED v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan 2010 GBLR 345
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan v. SADAR AZAM 2010 GBLR 347
• Haji GHULAM HUSAN v. Haji QASIM 2010 GBLR 351
• Syed JABBAR v. State 2010 GBLR 353

All Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit judgments of 2010 →

advocate from Kharian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes