Article 199 Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Constitution Petition Scope Petitioner has filed a constitutional petition against which the lease agreement for another year against discrimination was refused. The award was to be given for a playground / fun ride inside the zoo. The department contested the payment of over and over 25 percent of the contract money on the grounds that they did not extend the playground / fun ride agreement because these activities harass the zoo residents. And causing their environment to pollute. The High Court held that the applicant was barred from objecting to the same department, which could not be compelled, after agreeing to the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the work order. Contrary to the advice of the zoo maintenance committee, the agreement was extended for another period, which, due to the conditions the Waltetti Petitioner had accepted, could not be allowed to proceed at this alien stage and from one another. There is no jurisdiction to remain detained, as expressly stated, when his application to retain the term for another year was rejected. The contract, the applicant has, the extension was solely and solely at the option of the Department to authorize the refusal of detention for legitimate reasons. Use under which the applicant was not brought on record any material remote from discrimination by government officials, or supporting the high hand pin
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
