DEWAN PETROLEUM (PVT.) versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Article 199 Roll of Business, (Federal) 1973, R14 (2) (3) Constitutional Jurisdiction Jurisdictional Contract Promise Applying the Caliphate Principle Applicant After the discovery of gas by the applicant, the defendant / Government of Pakistan With the Petroleum Concession Agreement. Respondent implemented a development and commercial lease in favor of the applicant and nominated Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited from the applicant company as various interpretations of the relevant Articles of Petroleum Concession Parties resulted in a good headline assessment. There has been a dispute over. By mutual consent, the matter was forwarded to the Attorney General of Pakistan, who confirmed the applicant's version of the petitioner's petition that the dispute was resolved in the opinion of the Attorney General, who is bound by the government / defendant who Refused to set gas prices. It was further argued that the reference propo was by the defendant himself (the government), that the opinion of the Attorney General is bound to the government / respondents that he is responsible for the promise. The respondent stated that the constitutional petition is not manageable as there are numerous remedies available to the applicant ie arbitration, so that there was no `grieving party 'that the applicant should perform special acts. 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. 2) (3) In the Federal Rules of Business, 1973, the opinion of the Attorney General is a priority which can only be rejected by the Prime Minister or the record of the Cabinet shows that the Prime Minister
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
