The Sindh High Court on Tuesday restrained the provincial government from finalising the procurement process of six development projects in the East and Malir districts until further orders.The...
The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday restrained the provincial government from finalising the procurement process of six development projects in the East and Malir districts until further orders.
The petitioners said they had applied for six development projects of sewerage and construction of roads in the East and Malir districts that are worth over Rs500 million, offering the lowest bid for the projects. They said government officials did not accept their lowest bid for the development projects, but instead, accepted the highest bid of their preferred contractors, thereby not only jeopardising the interest of the petitioners but also causing a loss to the national exchequer. They added that the procuring agency did not take any decision on representation of the petitioners with regard to their bid. They requested the court to set aside the decision of the procuring agency for the acceptance of the highest bid, and allow their bid since it was the lowest.
After the preliminary hearing of the petition, an SHC division bench headed by Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed issued notices to the Sindh advocate general, the procurement agency and others for June 9, restraining the authority to finalise the procurement process in the meantime.
Bail plea rejected
The SHC also dismissed the bail application of a man in an attempt to murder case. Applicant Shah Jahan had been booked by the police for injuring a man named Nasir with a dagger. The applicant’s counsel said his client was falsely implicated by complainant Iftikhar Ahmed to satisfy his grudge with him over matrimonial affairs. He said the applicant had been in prison for over a year, and only three witnesses had been examined by the trial court, so the applicant was entitled to bail because the case needed further inquiry.
The additional prosecutor general opposed the bail application, saying that the applicant had been arrested with the weapon used in the crime.After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the court observed that the applicant had been named in the FIR with specific allegations, claiming that he had caused dagger blows on the abdomen of the complainant’s nephew with the intention to commit his murder, thereby he sustained damage to his intestine. The court observed that the motive of the applicant’s act was only to satisfy his grudge with the complainant because he had married his ex-wife. It observed that no case for grant of bail was made out, and dismissed the bail application with the direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the trial proceedings within three months.