DEWAN PETROLEUM (PVT.) versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Article 199 Rules of Business, (Federal) 1973, R14 (213) Constitutional Jurisdictional Contracting Contract Applying Promise Closure, Principal Applicant has entered into a Petroleum Concession Agreement with Respondent / Government of Pakistan in which the applicant side Upon discovery of the gas from, the defendant has been named a development and commercial lease in favor of the executed applicant and the buyer of the gas from the applicant / company by the name of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. with mutual consent, Petroleum Different interpretations of the relevant Articles of Concession Agreement have resulted in disputes over good pricing. The air. , The matter was referred to the Attorney General of Pakistan who supported the applicant / company version. The petitioner contended that the dispute was resolved in the opinion of the Attorney General, who was bound by the Government / Respondent, who declined to further determine the cost of the gas application. It was argued that the proposals made for reference were made by the defendants themselves (the government), the opinion of the Attorney General is bound to the government / respondents that he is responsible for the promise. Respondent stated that the constitutional petition is not enforceable because there are numerous remedies available for the applicant ie arbitration, the applicant performs special performance. There was no depressed party. The writ of mandamus could not be issued in the absence of any wrongdoing by a public official and the Attorney General's opinion was not binding on the government as it was not the opinion of the petroleum industry expert. 213) The Federal Rules of Business, 1973, take precedence over the opinion of the Attorney General, which is rejected by the Prime Minister only.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
