IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. having its office at 24/3C, Messon Road, Link
Lawrence Road, Lahore through its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Khalid Rauf.
.Petitioner
VERSUS
1.

Government of the Punjab through Secretary Communications and

Work Department, old Anarkali Lahore.

2.

Director General, Lahore Development Authority, LDA Plaza Egerton

Road Lahore.

3.

Chief Traffic Engineer TEPA, LDA, 4-C, Layton Road, Lahore.

4.

PDPMU Project Management Unit, Project Manager Lahore Ring Road

Project, 37-A, Al-Noor Centre, Township, PECO Road, Lahore.

5.

Chief Engineer Highway Punjab, 2-Lake Road, Lahore.

.Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.
==============================
=
Respectfully Sheweth:

1.

That the addresses of the parties have been correctly given in the title
of the petition for the services of processes which may be issued by this
Honble Court from time to time.

2.

That the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under

the laws of Pakistan having its registered office at 24/3C, Messon Road,
Link Lawrence Road, Lahore and this petition is being filed through
Mr. Khalid Rauf who is duly authorized representative of the
petitioner and is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is duly
authorized by resolution of board of directors dated 24/08/2008 to
sign, verify and institute these proceedings and do such other acts
which

are

necessary

and

incidental

thereto.

(Copy

of

the

Memorandum and Articles of Association are attached as Annex A &

B) (Copy of the board resolution is attached as Annex C)

3.

That the brief issue involved in this case is that the petitioner, who is a
highly reputed company involved in the business of providing services
of engineering and construction of highways and bridges for the past
32 years, has been blacklisted for future projects by the respondent
No.3 on the behest of respondent No.2. This so-called blacklisting of
the petitioner has been done by the respondents absolutely contrary to
the law, against the judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan, without show cause notice and any enquiry, in contravention
of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the terms and conditions
of the contract, arbitrarily, unlawful and for malafide reasons. In this
writ petition the action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner
has been challenged.

4.

The facts forming the background of this writ petition are narrated
below: -

BRIEF FACTS

(i)

That the petitioner is involved in the business of providing

services of engineering and construction of highways and
bridges for the past 32 years. In its business history the
petitioner has successfully completed the engineering and
construction on projects worth billions of rupees. These include
recently completed/near completion mega projects like Lahore
Ring Road (Package 3) Construction of Road Portion from
Niazi Chowk to Bund Road, Lahore (for Rs.2472 Million);
Lahore Ring Road (Package-1) Construction of Interchange at
Niazi Chowk, Lahore (for Rs.644 Million); Construction of
Lahore-Sheikhupura-Faisalabad

Dual

Carriageway

(BOT

Project) (For Rs.1200 Million); Dualization of G.T. Road from

Daroghawala to Wahgha Border (for 577 Million Rupees).
Owing to the reputation and good work of the petitioner the
petitioner is a no limit contactor and has contributed to the
national exchequer by depositing a tax of approximately 133.82
million in the last financial year 2007-2008. It is a record of the
petitioner that the petitioner has never breached any contract
with the Government of Punjab during its entire 32 years of
doing business. (Copy of petitioners profile with a list of its
achievements is attached as Annex D)

(ii)

That the petitioner owing to its reputation was awarded the

contract for improvement and rehabilitation of Maulna Shaukat
Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road (Chungi Amer
Sidhu) on 14/05/2008 which included the construction of a dual
carriage. The petitioner agreed to complete the project for a sum
of Rs30,25,15,421/. The acceptance of the work was done on
26/06/2008 and the work was commenced within 3 days
thereof on 29/08/2008. The project was to be completed within
four months on 29/10/2008. The petitioner after commencing
this work continued to execute the work as per the specifications

and timeline contained in the aforesaid contract. At the

commencement of construction of works, the petitioner also
duly gave all notices and warnings of safety and took all
precautionary measures for the safety and convenience of the
public. (Copy of the Contract, Acceptance letter, site drawings
are attached as Annex E, F & G)

(iii)

That it is pertinent to mention here that the contract had an

engineer in-charge who duly verified and monitored works
including the precautionary measures which were undertaken
by the petitioner on the site. The respondents never complained
or required the petitioner to increase the number of notice board
warnings etc. and this was because the petitioner had already
duly fulfilled all those requirements. The respondent No.3 was
fully satisfied with the performance of the petitioner regarding
the fulfillment of safety requirements. As proof of the fact that
the petitioner had done what is necessary, the petitioner is
attaching some photographs taken at the relevant time as
(Copies of the photographs are attached as Annex H/1 to H/3
respectively).

(iv)

That on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 the city of Lahore experienced

one of the heaviest rainfalls in its near history (the estimated
rainfall was about between 38mm to 48 mm which rainfall has
not taken place for 12 years). The rainfall started in the morning
and by the afternoon most parts of the city were inundated with
and under water. The site at which the petitioner was carrying
on the works was also similarly fully submerged in 4 to 5 feet of
water. The entire surrounding area of the site was also
completely submerged to the extent that it was impossible to
determine the location of the road, the green belt and the drain.
At about 4:00 pm on this day a person by the name of Amir
Iqbal tried to cross the work side (which was closed for traffic

from both sides, due to construction work) on Maula Shaukat

Ali Road, near Satu-katla over bridge from one end to the other.
As he was crossing, he slipped and in the process drowned at
some point. It is possible that he may have swept by the water,
struck a boundary wall of the under construction drain pipe and
fallen in the muddy waters. A rescue attempt was made but the
accident proved fatal. The death was obviously unfortunate but
accidental and due to no fault of any person. The warning signs
and precautionary measures were available at the site albeit
many of the warning signs may have been submerged. The work
had been going on since June 2008 and every person in the
locality knows that the site is under construction and is
therefore dangerous. The rain waters were unexpected and
created further danger which would have normally not present
and the unfortunate person opted voluntarily on his own to try
and cross in that situation. In spite of not being at fault, the
petitioner voluntarily gave a heavy compensation to the legal
heirs of the deceased who were fully satisfied and have given in
writing to the petitioner and have also made a statement to this
effect before the relevant magistrate that the petitioner is not to
blame and that this was a purely accidental death. (Copy of the
statement of the father of the deceased is attached as Annex I)

(v)

That however it appears that for some reason the respondents

are bent upon canceling the existing contracts of petitioner for
the purposes of awarding fresh contracts to their own favoured
contractors. The respondents were looking for an excuse and as
soon as the occurrence was reported in the press, the petitioner,
without enquiry and without any show cause, declared and
decided that the petitioner is guilty and ordered that the
petitioner be blacklisted for future projects.

(vi)

That in this connection it is very interesting to note that the

respondent No.3 at the behest of the respondent No.2 evidently
drafted

and

wrote,

but

never

sent

letter

No

CTE/TEPA/LDA/572 dated 15/08/2008 addressed to the

petitioner stating that due to non-compliance of the Clauses 13,
14, 15 and 20 of the contract a Pedestrian drowned into the rain
water and died and hence why not action should be taken
against the petitioner for gross negligence. This letter was
delivered to the petitioner on 18/08/2008. Without waiting for
any response from the petitioner or giving an opportunity of
hearing or defense to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 then
issued another letter dated 17/08/2008 (which happened to be a
Sunday) when the respondents were not even working, stating
that since no response has been received from the petitioner to
the previous letter dated 15/08/2008 (which letter was never
even sent till 18/08/200) therefore this office presumes that you
have nothing to say at your end, accordingly, you are hereby
blacklisted for future projects. (Copies of letter dated
15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are attached as Annex J & K)

(vii)

That the said letter of 17/08/2008 was also delivered to the

petitioner at 4 pm on 18/08/2008 (which was merely few hours
after the delivery of letter dated 15/08/2008). It is submitted
that the manner in which the petitioner has been blacklisted as
narrated above, without giving an opportunity of hearing and
by trying to camouflage as if a show cause notice has been
given, smacks of malafide apparent on the face of the record.
The Peon book of 16/08/2008 of TEPA is clear evidence of this
illegality. (Copy of the Peon book of TEPA is attached as Annex
L/1 & L/2).

viii)

That the petitioner vide letter No.KRC/4147 dated 21/08/2008

and letter No.KRC/4148 dated 22/08/2008 duly responded to

the letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 but to no avail,

hence this writ petition. (Copies of the letters are Annex M/1 to
M/8 & N/1 to N/9)

(ix)

That the respondent No.6 have initiated a smear campaign in

the media against the petitioner and in this regard huge
advertisements have been published on the front pages of the
newspapers (Jang, Nawa-i-waqt and Khabrain) stating that the
petitioner has been black listed for his negligence in the incident
of 12th August, 2008. The respondent No.6 has also made a
completely false statement that it paid a compensation of
Rs.500,000/- to the deceased. In fact the compensation was paid
by the petitioner in order to alleviate the loss of the legal heirs of
the deceased victim. (Copies of the advertisements in Jang and
Nawa-i-waqt are attached as Annex O & P)

(x)

That the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to

participate in the bidding/tendering of other projects of the
government department merely due to the illegal and
unwarranted blacklisting letter of 17/08/2008. The livelihood of
the petitioner is in jeopardy now.

(xi)

That this and shall be a subject matter of separate legal

proceedings, it is pertinent to mention here that in pursuance of
the agenda to cancel all the contracts of the petitioner the
respondent No.3 on behalf of respondents No.2 has also issued
cancellation notices regarding the following projects of the
petitioner: -

a)

Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of

Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road
(Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore RD 0+000 to 3+500) (Section-I)
vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

b)

Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of

Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road
(Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore RD 3+500 to 5+600) (Section-II)
vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

c)

Notice on Contract for Improvement & Rehabilitation of

Maulana Shaukat Ali Road from UBD Canal to Ferozepur Road
(Chungi Amer Sidhu), Lahore (Link Road-Jail Road to
Ferozepur Road via Katcha Jail Road) (Section-III) vide letter
dated 22/08/2008.

d)

Notice on Improvement & Remodeling of Khurshid Alam Road

from Shami Road to R.A. Bazar Lahore Cantt. vide letter dated
22/08/2008.

e)

Notice on Improvement of Shami Road from Khalid Butt Chowk

vide letter dated 22/08/2008.

f)

Notice on Construction of Pedestrian Overhead Bridge infront of

Kinnaird

College

Jail

Road,

Lahore

vide

letter

dated

22/08/2008.
(Copies of the notices are attached as Annex Q/1 to Q/6)

(xii)

That it is also pertinent to mention here that in order to pressurize the

petitioner the respondent No.3 has also filed an FIR No.721/2008 inter
alia against the petitioner. Petitioner is contesting that FIR in
accordance with law. It is submitted that the FIR is also likely to be
disproved against the petitioner accordingly. Infact the legal heirs have
filed statements and affidavits in various proceedings which testify
that the petitioner is not guilty.

(Copy of order of Judl Magistrate in the bail petition of co accused

Abdul Rab and Mazhar Abbas, recording the statements of heirs of
deceased before Judl Magistrate Model Town are attached as Annex R)

(Copies of affidavit and of heirs of deceased in Abdul Rab case are

attached as Annex S/1 to S/5)

(Receipt of compensation as Annex T)

(Copy of the FIR is attached as Annex U)

(Copies of the affidavits of legal heirs of deceased in case of State vs

Saif Rehman & Khalid Rauf etc are attached as Annex V/1 to V/6)

5.

That briefly the letters dated 15/08/2008 giving show cause notice and
the blacklisting letter dated 17/08/2008 are illegal and liable to be set
aside inter alia on the following:

Grounds
A)

That both letters dated 15/08/2008 (giving so called show

notice) and letter dated 17/08/2008 (the blacklisting letter) were
delivered to the petitioner within few hours on 18/08/2008.
This means that the petitioner was never given a show cause
notice in law and the black listing was done in violation of the
judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and against the
principles of natural justice. This also shows that the decision of
blacklisting had already been done and the show cause notice
was a mere formality. On this ground alone the show cause
notice is illegal and liable to be declared as such by this Honble
Court.

B)

That even if it is assumed that the show cause notice was issued
on 15/08/2008 which is a Friday and received by the petitioner

on the same day, the letter does not disclose or specify as to

within what time the reply or defense has to be presented by the
petitioner. In these circumstances the law has to presume that
the petitioner has reasonable time within which to respond. The
petitioner was thereafter issued a blacklisting letter on
17/08/2008 which is a Sunday and which clearly shows that
there was no opportunity of showing cause available to the
petitioner. The petition has been condemned unheard. As the
blacklisting is a punishment in law it cannot be awarded
without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. The
decision on the face of it is against the principal of natural
justice. The respondent in this respect had apparently decided
that the petitioner was guilty and did not even bother for a
reply. The respondent No.3 was obviously acting under the
directions and authority of respondent No.2 and hence did not
have the freedom of mind or the courage to follow the law and
deny the illegal demand or orders of his superior. Not only on
this ground is the action of blacklisting illegal but also
exemplary damages need to be imposed on the respondents for
such blatant violation of the law.

C)

That the letters of 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are contradictory

and self-defeating. In the letter dated 15/08/2008 the petitioner
has been given an opportunity to show a cause, whereas under
17/08/2008 that opportunity has been taken away and
blacklisting is being done without giving any such opportunity
to the petitioner. It is submitted that the blacklisting being
contrary to the earlier dated 15/08/2008 is liable to be set aside.

D)

That even on merits the case of the petitioner has to be fully

adjudicated and it is only if the petitioner is at fault or
negligence that action against the petitioner in accordance with
the contract be taken. This Honble Court is not required of

course in this writ petition to adjudicate upon the merits of the

event of 12/08/2008 but with respect it is submitted that even
the reference to Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 20 in the letter dated
15/08/2008 are not relevant. Clause 13 provides that lightening
is to be provided in case night work is carried on. The
unfortunate event took place at 4:00 pm and hence there was no
issue of light which is in any case was provided. Clause 13.2
states that the contractor will maintain at its own cost of all
caution boards etc. as and when required by the engineer in
charge for the protection of the workers or for the safety and
convenience of the public. This was duly done but the accident
happened in spite of these warnings. Clause 14 provides that
the contractor is to ensure that unfinished work is not damaged
in the case of weather condition. Clause 14 accordingly does not
have relevance. Clause 15 of the contract provides that the
contractor is to supply his own materials and plant and
machinery as may be required by the engineer and that the
contractor will provide all fencing and lights required to protect
the public from accident and shall be bound to bear expenses on
the action by any person injured and pay damages to such a
person. Petitioner did provide all fencing and lights required to
protect the public from accidents. In fact the fence provided
around the drainage work was made of proper bricks. It was
apparently because the entire site was submerged with rain
water and because the unfortunate person decided to take the
risk of going through the water that no fencing or other warning
could prevent his injury and death. In fact Clause 16 negates the
very basis of blacklisting because it specifies that in case any
action is brought for an injury due to petitioners negligence
then the petitioner would defend such a case and pay damages,
if necessary. The contract no where provides that the petitioner
would be declared guilty by the respondents or blacklisted even
though the petitioner has not been sued by the injured party

and the petitioners negligence has not been proved in the court
of law. As stated above, in this case, the legal heirs of the
deceased have stated on oath and confirmed that the accident
was not the fault of the petitioner but was purely an accident of
circumstances and the petitioner has also compensated them in
any case voluntarily. Hence there is no violation of Clause 15 as
well. Clause 17 provides that the contractor shall provide skilled
engineers and technical engineers, which has no relevancy to
this case.

From the perusal of the above clauses it is obvious that the

action of blacklisting the petitioner, in pursuance of the
aforesaid clauses, is on the face of it wrong and illegal.

E)

That even if it is assumed that the petitioner was negligent, the

contract does not provide for the petitioner to be blacklisted by
the respondents. To the contrary the contract and the law is that
if the petitioner has committed a breach of the contract and not
provided the safety requirements then the respondents are
required under the law to first demand from the petitioner to
rectify the breach and provide the necessary safety structures
and if the petitioner thereafter fails to do so then the
respondents can issue notice for termination of the contract in
accordance with the requisite clause. The contract further
provides that in case the petitioner disputes that allegation of
breach or termination then the petitioner can take the matter to
arbitration and it is only the award of the arbitration finally in
accordance with law which can then be the final decision with
respect to their dispute. The contract no where provided that
the respondent can simply, on the executive side, only because it
is the Government, ignore the contract and declare the
petitioner blacklisted. It is well-established by the superior
courts of Pakistan that the Government is as bound by the

contracts and more so than the private individuals and cannot

act arbitrarily. The action of blacklisting the petitioner without
following the provisions of the contract amounts to arbitrary
and capricious exercise of powers which is liable to be set aside
by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
F.

That it is a fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under

the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 that no one
can be condemned unheard and no ones business can be
curtailed or restricted except in accordance with law. It is
submitted that petitioner has invested hundreds of million in
the construction business which shall be ruined due to the
arbitrary and capricious nature of respondents actions. It is the
petitioners business to provide services for engineering and
construction of roads and highways and by blacklisting the
petitioner from future projects in this illegal manner the
respondents are violating the Constitution.

G.

That it is now well established in various judgments and

decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the various
High Courts that all public authorities and functionaries, in
their dealing with citizens of the country, have to be fair,
transparent, just and above-board. An equally well established
principle of law is that all public authorities and functionaries
must not use powers in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner.
By blacklisting the petitioner, the respondents have exercised
their powers in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner. Hence
this writ petition.

H.

That the public functionaries, deriving their authority from or

under law, are obligated to act justly, fairly, equitably,
reasonably, without any element of discrimination and squarely
within the parameters of law, and if their actions are contrary to
the above, such actions are amenable to judicial review, hence

this writ petition. The action of blacklisting the petitioner is

illegal because these principles of law have been violated.
7.

That the petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid illegal, unlawful and

malafide conduct/scheme of the respondents for which no other
adequate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner except to
invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, hence,
this writ petition. Since the case involves the enforcement of
fundamental rights and blatant violation of the law by an authority
which is considered itself above all legal requirements and has taken
the law to its own hands, and because this august High Court is
custodian of such fundamental and private rights of the people, this
petition is only proper remedy available to the petitioner in these
circumstances.

PRAYER
In view of the circumstances mentioned above it is most respectfully prayed
that the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2007 may kindly be
declared to be illegal and accordingly be set aside. It be directed that the
respondents shall take no further action in respect of the blacklisting on the
basis of the letter dated 15/08/2008 or 17/08/2008.
It is further prayed that it be declared that the petitioner is not blacklisted for
any of its ongoing projects, or for which the petitioner has been pre-qualified
as well as any future projects with the respondents. The respondents be
further directed that petitioners may be allowed to participate in
tenders/bidding for government projects without any let and hindrance.
It is also further prayed that the respondents be directed not to take any
action against the petitioner in respect of the incident.
It is further prayed that the ongoing projects of the petitioner may not be
cancelled rescinded or cancelled on the basis of illegal blacklisting letter dated
17/08/2008.
It is further prayed that respondents may be directed to continue making

payments, including running bills, in respect of the on going contracts strictly

in accordance with the respective contracts.
Any other relief deemed to be just and fair may kindly also be granted to the
petitioner in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER
Through:

Syed Ali Zafar

Bar-at-law
CC. No. PLH No.234

Zahid Nawaz Cheema

Advocate High Court
CC. No. PLH No.2385

Muhammad Saqib Jillani

Advocate High Court

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Advocates
Zafar Chambers
Aziz Avenue,
Canal Bank, Gulberg-V
Lahore
CERTIFICATE
1.

As per instructions, this is the first petition in this Honble Court on the
subject.

2.

The petition has been arisen out of the violation and non-fulfillment of
the provisions of law and the petitioner has no other efficacious and
speedy remedy at the moment.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd

.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973.
===============================

Affidavit of: Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co.
(Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:1.

That the above named deponent has filed accompanying writ petition
before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may kindly be
read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.

That the contents of the accompanying writ petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed thereof.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Lahore on this

day of August 2008 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008
In
Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd

.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM

RELIEF.

Respectfully Sheweth:
1.

That the petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition the
contents whereof for the sake of convenience and brevity may kindly
be read as an integral part of this application.

2.

The petitioner has a strong prima facie case and there is very likelihood
of its success.

3.

The balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of the

petitioner.

4.

That the respondents are unduly harassing the petitioner by

threatening to stop the petitioner from working on its on going projects
and in this regard a malicious campaign has also been initiated by the
respondents in the print media. The respondents actions are not only
causing financial losses to the petitioner, but his reputation is being
immensely tarnished.

5.

That in case the interim relief is not granted, the petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.

6.

That if the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 are not
suspended and the respondents are not directed to stop their malicious
campaign, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

PRAYER
It is respectfully prayed that in pending the disposal of the subject writ
petition the impugned letters dated 15/08/2008 and 17/08/2008 may kindly
be suspended and the respondents be directed to immediately halt their
smear campaign against the petitioner.

It is further prayed that the respondent be directed not to take any further
action against the petitioner till the disposal of the titled writ petition.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
respondents may be directed to continue making payments, including
running bills, in respect of the on going contracts strictly in accordance with
the respective contracts.
Pending disposal of this petition an ad interim relief in the above manner may
also kindly be granted to the petitioner.

Any other relief deemed to be just and fair may kindly also be granted to the
petitioner/applicant in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

Through:

Syed Ali Zafar

Bar-at-law
CC. No. PLH No.234

Zahid Nawaz Cheema

Advocate High Court
CC. No. PLH No.2385

Muhammad Saqib Jillani

Advocate High Court

Mandviwalla & Zafar

Advocates
Zafar Chambers,
7/B-1, Aziz Avenue,
Canal Bank, Gulberg-V
Lahore

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008
In
Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd

.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM
RELIEF.
Affidavit of: Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co.
(Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-

1.

That the above named deponent has filed accompanying application

for stay before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may
kindly be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.

That the contents of the accompanying application for stay are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed thereof.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ day of August 2008 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008
In
Writ Petition No./2008
Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd
.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. TO DISPENSE WITH
FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES WITH THE WRIT
PETITION.
Respectfully Sheweth:
1.

That the petitioner has filed the accompanying writ petition in which
no date of hearing has been fixed so far.

2.

That the petitioner has annexed certain uncertified copies alongwith

the titled petition.

3.

That the petitioner is making serious efforts to secure the certified

copies of the said documents and shall place the same on record as and
when the same are made available to the applicant and till then the
uncertified copies placed on the file may be taken into consideration.

It view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that the present application
may be allowed and the certified copy may be dispensed for the time being
and the copies already placed on file may kindly be taken into consideration.

PETITIONER
Through:

Counsel
Mandviwalla & Zafar
Zafar Chambers
7/B-1, Aziz Avenue
Canal Bank, Gulberg-V

Lahore

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

C.M. No./2008
In
Writ Petition No./2008
Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd
.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. TO DISPENSE WITH
FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES WITH THE WRIT
PETITION.
Affidavit of: Mian Khalid Rauf, Chief Executive Officer, Khalid Rauf & Co.
(Pvt.) Ltd., 24/3C, Messon Road, Link Lawrence Road, Lahore.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-

1.

That the above named deponent has filed accompanying application

for stay before this Honble Court and the contents of the same may
kindly be read as an integral part of this affidavit.

2.

That the contents of the accompanying application for stay are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed thereof.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ day of August 2008 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Writ Petition No./2008

Khalid Rauf & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd
.Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, C&W and others
.Respondents

INDEX
S.No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Description of Documents
Ground of writ petition alongwith
affidavit
Memorandum and Articles of
Association
Copy of Board Resolution
Copy of petitioners profile with a
list of its achievements
Copy of the Contract
Acceptance letter
Site drawings
Copies of the photographs
Copy of the statement of the father
of the deceased
Letter from Respondent No.3
dated 15/08/2008
Letter from respondent no.3 dated
17/08/2008
Copy of the Peon book of TEPA
Letter
No.KRC/4147
dated
21/08/2008 from the petitioner
Letter
No.KRC/4148
dated
22/08/2008 from the petitioner

Dated

Annexure

Pages
1-16

16/08/2008

A&B

17-34

35-36

37-47

E
F
G
H/1 to H/3

48-113
114-116
117-137
138-140

141-142

143

144

L/1 & L/2

145-146

M/1 to M/8

147-155

N/1 to N/9

156-169

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

24.
25.

Copy of the advertisement in Jang

Copy of the advertisement in
Nawa-i-waqt
Copies of the notices issued by the
respondent
Copy of order of Judl. Magistrate
in bail petition of co accused
Abdul Rab and Mazhar Abbas,
recording the statements of heirs of
deceased before Judl Magistrate
Model Town
Copies of affidavits of heirs of
deceased in Abdul Rab case
Receipt of compensation
Copy of the FIR
Copies of the affidavits of legal
heirs of deceased in case of State vs
Saif Rehman & Khalid Rauf etc
Application to dispense with filing
of certified copies of annexures
with the writ petition alongwith
affidavit
Interim Application alongwith
affidavit
Power of Attorney

22/08/2008

170

171

Q/1 to Q/6

172-177

178-182

S/1 to S/5

178-192

T
U

193
194-195

V/1 to V/6

196-207

208-209

210-213

PETITIONER

Through:

COUNSEL
Mandviwalla & Zafar
Zafar Chambers
7/B-I, Aziz Avenue,
Canal Bank Gulberg-V,
Lahore