KOHISAR ENTERPRISES THROUGH PARTNER versus PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY
Article 199 Constitutional Petition Tender Notice Regarding the fair transparency of the refund, the applicant claimed that the modification of the royalty rate was arbitrary, unilaterally and illegally the tender notice was practically a liquid, partially Was invisible and served as a wide-ranging invitation for acceptance and acceptance by the applicant, which responded to the proposal through variations and increased the responsibilities twice. That the current rate was increased by 50% and such rate would be notified immediately within a few days of tender. Introduced under N, if the royalty rate increase could be considered by the parties who published the tender notice, in all likelihood why the process was not done because of the same nature as the authorities would know that the royalty rate The increase was to increase the fixed rate by 50%, it was clarified in the public notice but such information has been prevented from stating that the rise could go up to 50% of the rate, so, if they later If you like at some stage, you have the benefit of turning the transaction in their favor. There was a complete decline in the transaction, which betrayed the outcome of the transaction itself. In such cases the courts had the power to ensure a transparent boundary. Petitioner was sincerely entitled to a refund, which also allowed for security deposit by mistake
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
