WAOAR AHMAD SETH, J.- Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 through the instant writ petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the order dated 26.6.2014 of respondent No.3 being made against law, without jurisdiction and lawful authority is of no legal effect whatever.
2. Neither the petitioner-company nor any counsel on its behalf present. However, the assertion narrated in the writ petition is that the petitioner despite having lowest bid, disqualified by the respondents, which is tantamount to bypassing merit and fair play and that the impugned order being against law and the recognized procedure is liable to be struck down.
3. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the material brought on the file.
4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Company. However, it lacks the requisite resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner Company, which is mandatory for any company to initiate legal proceedings. In the absence of the resolution, which is a legal requirement, this writ petition cannot be termed as competent. In view of this legal infirmity, the present petition is not competent in the eyes of law and maintaining the same would be a futility in law. In the case of Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot Vs. M/s Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd.
(PLD 1971 S.C. 550), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the competency of a suit being filed by a company, without a valid sanction of the board of directors, held that:- "In my opinion no valid authority was conferred on Mr.Khurshid Mehmood and, therefore, he was not competent to institute the suit. I would, therefore, hold that the trial court was perfectly justified dismissing the suit on this ground."
In the case of Abubakar Salim Mayet Vs. Abbott Laborities (1987 CLC 367) the Court after reviewing a string of decisions from the Indian and Pakistani jurisdiction came to the conclusion that:- "The upshot of the above discussion is that the suit was instituted by a person who was not legally authorized to institute the suit and, therefore, the issue should have been decided in favour of the appellant. The finding of the trial court on this issue is set aside and decided in favour of the appellant."
This view has been again reiterated in the case of Hibro Instruments (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Mst.Sikandar Begum (2007 M LD 1270), where the basic judgment of the Supreme Court in Mamdot's case was followed and an appeal filed by the company without the legal sanction of a valid resolution of the board of directors was declared incompetent and thus rejected.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on merit.