ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.

 

C.P. No.D-611 of 2012

 

Date             Order with signature of Judge

 

 

  1. For Katcha Peshi.
  2. For hearing of Misc. 3294/12.
  3. For hearing of Misc. 8112/12

 

Dated: 14.05.2012

 

Mr. Yousuf Moulvi for the petitioners.

 

Mr. Muhammad Qasim for respondent No.1 along with Col. Pervaiz, Chief Security Officer.

 

Mr. Asim Iqbal for respondents No.3, 4 & 5.

 

-.-.-

 

Although as per bailiff report dated 29.02.2012 respondents No.6 have been duly served however none is present on their behalf. 

 

The instant petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of in the following terms:-

 

I)                   That the respondents No.3 and 4 shall withdraw the impugned letter dated 20.02.2012, annexure ‘P’ to the petition, instantly.

 

II)                 That since the petitioners are still amongst the pre-qualified contractors of the respondents No.3 and 4 for security services and their bid also was found to be the lowest, they shall be awarded the security contract accordingly. The respondents No.3 shall withdraw the award of the contract in favour of respondent No.6 instantly.

 

III)               That the petitioners shall strictly abide by the terms and conditions of the contract. They shall fulfill their obligations in terms of the contract honestly and diligently. The petitioners shall provide at the various installations and sites of the respondents No.3 company adequate security, as required in terms of the contract. They shall ensure full and effective attendance of the security personnel at the various prescribed sites and installations and make all necessary arrangement to fulfill their obligations fully and effectively.

 

IV)               In case the petitioners fail to perform any of their duties and fulfill any of their obligations, as required of them in terms of the contract, the respondents No.3 and 4 shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

 

V)                 The above may, however, not be deemed a certification or endorsement of the petitioners’ performance with the respondents No.3 and 4.

 

 

Judge

 

 

 

                                                                             Judge