WIQAR AHMAD, J. This order is directed to dispose of instant writ petition bearing No. 803-A/2021 as well as connected writ petition bearing No. 1137-A/2021. In both the writ petitions, subject of attack has been the process and award of contract to M/S Monal Group / A-cube, (Pvt) Ltd. Plot 253-A, Street 6, Sector I-9/2, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as Monal group) by Galiyat Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GDA) for modernization of Ayubia Chairlift resort on the basis of Public Private Partnership. GDA invited expressions of interest for modernization of Ayubia Chairlift Resort, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in newspapers published on 29.07.2020, through Public Private Partnership for period of 40 years. The scope of required work included setting up of a modern chairlift by installing international standard chairlift, development of recreational centers, entertainment, restaurant, hotel, sport etc. It was mentioned in the advertisement that GDA would provide 140 Kanals of land for 40 years and shall facilitate acquisition of NOCs from the relevant government departments. A number of firms submitted their expression of interest for the subject scheme but most of them had been knocked out during their technical evaluation and only two of the firms i.e. Samsun Group of Companies (petitioner in WP No. 803-A/2021) and Monal Group (respondent No. 6 in same writ petition) were found qualified during technical evaluation. When financial bids of both the companies were opened, the bid offered by respondent No. 6 i.e. Monal Group was found as best responsive bid and was accepted by the GDA, which was also followed by issuance of letter of intent to said company. Feeling aggrieved of the process, evaluation of bids as well as issuance of letter of intent in favour of respondent No. 6 (Monal Group), petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following relief:- "On acceptance of the instant writ petition, the process of evaluation of the financial bids submitted by the petitioner company and respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 4 & 5 by clear demonstration of conduct accommodating respondent No. 6 outside the realm of law, is arbitrary, malafide and based on dishonest and wrong exercise of authority hence, the process of accepting financial bid of respondent No. 6 be ordered to be set aside, the LOI issued to respondent No. 6 be cancelled and the respondents be directed to issue Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner as the petitioner is the successor bidder by every stretch of mind. Any other relief as may be deemed fit may also be given to the petitioner company."
WP No. 1137-A/2021 Galiyat Tahafuz Movement and others, have filed writ petition No. 1137- A/2021 by raising a number of objections to the award of contract to Monal Group who is respondent No. 7 in their writ petition.
They have raised particular objections to clauses 7.1, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 and 11.3 of the contract and sought the whole contract to be declared as illegal, unlawful being violative of provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Forest Ordinance) as well as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Wildlife Act). They are also aggrieved of terminating rights of other people in the subject area and contracting same out to the respondent No. 7. After highlighting their grievances, petitioners in WP No. 1137-A/2021 have prayed for following reliefs:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of instant writ petition, appropriate writ may graciously be issued: A) Requiring respondent No. 1 and 2 under what authority of law they have entered into {"The agreement"} by not only over stepping their powers conferred under the respective Act but in derogation and suppression of Forest Act and Wildlife Act.
B) Requiring respondent No. 3 and 7 under what authority of law they remained fail till now to act in accordance with the provisions of Forest Act and Wildlife Act.
C) Declaring {"The Agreement"} as unlawful, illegal, without legal sanctity/jurisdiction, void ab initio, ultra vires to the scheme and provisions of Forest Act, Wild Life Act, Galiyat Development Authority Act and also in conflict with the fundamental rights of the citizens thus is liable to be struck down.
D) Refraining respondents from taking any step(s) whatsoever, in any manner, either directly or indirectly in connection with the further progress of {"the Agreement"} while maintaining status quo till to date.
E) Further refraining respondents from taking any step(s) whatsoever, in any manner, either directly or indirectly under the garb of {"the Agreement"} to interfere in the lawful possession of all the stake holders pertaining to the disputed land.
F) Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner."
We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Determination of controversy in Writ Petition No. 803-A/2021
1. Perusal of record reveals that GDA had invited expression of interest for modernization of Ayubia Chairlift through Public Private Partnership. GDA was supposed to lease out the land on which existing Chairlift had been operating with some addition to it, a total of which land comprised of 140 Kanals, for a period of 40 years. The contracting party was supposed to establish a modern resort by installing international standard chairlift, development of recreational centers, entertainment, restaurant, hotel, sport, parking and all other allied facilities at chairlift base station as well as at the top station. Various parties including petitioner submitted their bids. Rest of the parties could not succeed at prequalification stage and only the petitioner and respondent No. 6 passed pre-qualification stage successfully. When financial bids were opened, the bid of respondent No. 6 was found as best responsive and was accordingly accepted, while bid of petitioner-company being lower was not entertained. These are the basic facts which have given rise to the grievance of petitioner in WP No. 803-A/2021. But while filing writ petition, petitioner has also raised another objection to entire process of bidding and contracting out the facility on Public Private Partnership Mode. This objection was basically rooted in non-observing provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Private Partnership Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as PPP Act, 2020).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of their contentions have referred to the definition of Contracting Authority as provided in clause "C" of Section 2 of the PPP Act, 2020 and contended that GDA being autonomous body was squarely falling in definition of Contracting Authority and therefore, PPP Act, 2020 was applicable to them. In same line of arguments, they also referred to clause "n" of Section 2 of the PPP Act, 2020 as well as Section 3 and 4 of the Act and contended that since the bids had not been invited and contract not awarded according to provisions of the Act, therefore, all the exercise taken so for, had been vitiated and was unlawful.
3. In response thereto, learned counsel representing the GDA has contended that GDA was an autonomous body established under the Galiyat Development Authority Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as GDA Act, 2016), with the power to own, possess and dispose of its properties. He also relied on the provisions of Galiyat Development Authority Amended Act, 2020 (herein after referred to as the amendment Act, 2020) as well as Galiyat Development Authority Auction Regulations, 2019 and contended that GDA was having full capacity for leasing its land without having resort to the Provincial Government or the PPP Act, 2020.
4. It was a case of apparent conflict between provisions of GDA Act, 2016 and PPP Act, 2020. The GDA Act, 2016 was promulgated with the aim and object of reconstituting and reorganizing the GDA for the development of Galiyat areas and other regions of Hazara Division. It was also expressly mentioned in the preamble that after feeling it necessary to give autonomy to Galiyat Development Authority for better management and development of Galiyat areas and other regions of Hazara Division and to give due representation to private sector in Galiyat Development Authority, beside aiming in achieving and maintaining high performance standards in the preparation and execution of schemes in the said areas, the Act was being enacted. Vide the amendment Act, 2020 (Act No. XVII), the preamble was further amended by providing that the government wanted to promote tourism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province particularly in Galiyat area. We may safely refer to the preamble, for ascertaining the purposes and object of a statute.
Intention of legislature in enacting the GDA Act, 2016 has been explained in express words not only in the original preamble but also in the clause added to the original preamble by way of the amendment of 2020. It also needs mention here that GDA was not a new phenomena managing affairs in this area. It was in-fact successor of Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust established under the Galiyat Development Authority Act, 1996 which was itself a successor of Rawalpindi and Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust, established under Rawalpindi and Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust Act, 1961.
5. The purpose of reorganizing and reconstituting the GDA was to make it more autonomous, vibrant and effective for promoting tourism in Galiyat areas and rest of the areas in its domain. For carrying forward the purpose and object of the Act, Section 3 was put in place in the Act which provided:-
3. Re-constitution of the Authority.--- (1) As soon as may be, after the commencement of this Act, Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, re-constitute the Galiyat Development Authority, established under the Galiyat Development Authority Act, 1996 (Act No. VII of 1996), in accordance with section 4 of this Act and shall be known as the "Galiyat Development Authority".
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with powers, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and transfer property, both movable and immovable and may by its name sue or be sued.
(3) The head office of the Authority shall be at Abbottabad; provided that the Authority may establish sub-offices within the Galiyat areas for managing the affairs of the Authority."
6. Section 4 provided for constitution of the Authority as comprising of 11 members in which five members were supposed to be from private sector, two among them were provided to be local members of the Provincial Assembly of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from Galiyat area and four members from Government sector. Here also government was kept in minority with a total number of 4 members while 7 members were provided from non-governmental sector. It is important to note that sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provide that Authority shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with powers, subject to provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and transfer property, both movable and immovable and may by its name sue or be sued. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 provides that subject to provisions of the Act and the rules, the Authority may exercise such powers and take such measures as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Purposes as encapsulated in the preamble were therefore, also adopted in substantive part of the Act by giving a mandate to the Authority to take all such measures which were necessary for carrying out purposes of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that all acts of the authority shall be expressed and taken in the name of Authority and authenticated by the DG by affixation of his official seal. In addition to the general powers, special powers had also been entrusted on the Authority which included a wide spectrum of powers in the original Act. In the year 2020, the legislature further added such specific powers vide the amending Act No. XVII of 2020, wherein clause (c) to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, was substituted as follows:- "(c) sell, lease, exchange, transfer, mortgage, put under lien or encumbrances, allot, hire, cancel, restore, regularize or otherwise dispose of or deal in any property vested in or entrusted to the Authority, in such a manner as may be prescribed".
Similarly vide said amended Act, clause (O-i) was also added which contained following words: "(o-i) Make policies, from time to time, for carrying out the purpose of this Act."
7. After possessing such wide spectrum of powers, including powers to sell, lease, exchange, transfer, mortgage and deal in any property vested in or entrusted to the Authority (in such manner as may be prescribed) we cannot say that the Authority was divested of the powers to lease its property to respondent No. 6, be it in the Public Private Partnership mode. If an Authority had power to sell its properties, why can't it enter into transaction of lease through Public Private Partnership in respect of same property. Drawing an inference to the contrary would naturally lead to absurd consequences. While interpreting statutes, a construction which leads to absurd consequences is to be avoided. Honourable Supreme Court of India, while giving its judgment in the case of "Oxford University Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax" reported as 2001 PTD 2484, has held that while literally construing a statute, an interpretation that leads to unreasonable or absurd consequences, was not to be adopted. This court in its earlier judgment, given in the case of "Shahzada Colonel Sharif-ud-Din and others Vs. The Settlement Officer District Upper and Lower Chitral and others" reported as 2021 CLC Peshawar 1968, has also concluded that when an interpretation leads to absurd consequences, then same should not be placed upon provision of a statute.
8. There is no doubt about the fact that the Authority is bound by directions of the government as provided in Section 14 (and also other provisions of the Act), but providing for such control of the government cannot be given effect of divesting the powers of sale, mortgage, exchange or leasing of its property which powers have been vested in the Authority by other provisions of the Act, expressly.
9. Having analyzed powers of the Authority in the Act, viz-a-viz impugned transaction, we would now come to the provisions of PPP Act, 2020. Through the Act of 2020, the earlier existing law i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Private Partnership Act, 2014 was repealed. PPP Act of 2020, was published in the official gazette on 09.10.2020. Advertisement soliciting bids for the subject scheme was issued on 29.07.2020, where last date for submission of bids was given as 15.04.2020. Same was also extended and lastly the bids have been opened on 28.05.2021. The PPP Act, 2020 was though not in field at the time of inviting bids, but had been promulgated before opening bids and award of contract.
10. It is case of petitioners as raised in the instant writ petition that PPP Act was applicable to the present impugned transaction and non-compliance of its provisions would vitiate the whole process including award of contract to respondent No. 6. The Contracting Authority has no doubt, been defined very widely which included body corporate or autonomous bodies of the government, local government or any organization or corporation owned or controlled by a local government. Section 4 says that the Committee shall be the exclusive authority for grant of proposals on project submitted to the Authority under the Public Private Partnership Act. Then, the committee is supposed to oversee, monitor and evaluate the projects, besides reviewing legal, institutional and regulatory framework of the Public Private Partnerships under sub-Section (2) thereof. As entire regime has been put to place for regulation of the Public Private Partnership and matters ancillary therewith. Rest of the provisions of the Act also provide basis for Public Private Partnership, Private Sector Participation, Procedure for Project Processing, Selection of Private Partner, Modes of Financing of Projects etc. Section 29 of the Act is important in this respect which provides, while giving the Act overriding effect to provisions of the Act, that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding and exclusive effect in relation to the Projects under the Act.
11. There is though an apparent conflict between provisions of GDA Act of 2016 (as amended) and PPP Act, 2020. The amendment Act, 2020 has been enacted by the Provincial Legislature on 04th of March, 2020, while PPP Act, 2020 has been enacted on 09.10.2020. GDA had also framed Regulations providing for a mechanism for entering into Public Private Partnership. These Regulations were enacted on 17.06.2019. Provisions of both the Acts have to be harmoniously interpreted. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of "Market Committee, Khudian Vs. Town Committee, Khudian" reported as 1992 SCMR 1403, has held that where necessary, options for harmonious interpretation of seemingly conflicting statutes, should be made, not as a whole but only to the extent, so far as it was necessary. Similarly, in the case of "Lahore Development Authority Vs. Ms. Imrana Taiwana" reported as 2015 SCMR 1739, honourable apex Court had held that provisions of the statute should be read in holistic manner so as to construe them harmoniously. Honourable Karachi High Court, while giving its judgment in the case of "Messrs Pakland Cement Limited through Director Vs. Shamim Mushtaq Siddiqui" reported as 2002 CLD Karachi 1392, has also held that unless and until there was an irreconcilable conflict, the court should lean in favour of harmonious interpretation so as to avoid any conflict and keep the laws operative in their occupied fields in order to avoid any provision from becoming redundant or surplus.
12. When the two Acts are kept in juxtaposition viz-a-viz determination of authority of the GDA to enter into the subject contract, we see that the subject statute has provided full powers to GDA to deal with its properties in any manner including sale, mortgage, exchange, transfer etc. Power to frame Regulations has also been given to GDA under Section 37 of the Act. The Regulations so framed had also given powers to the authority for entering into Public Private Partnership. Saying that GDA was not having legal capacity or power of entering into lease in Public Private Partnership mode would go in contrast with the GDA, Act and Regulations framed thereunder. Having such overwhelming powers for dealing with its own properties, the only way of harmonious interpretation of GDA Act with PPP Act, is to hold that it is held to be optional for fully autonomous bodies to have resort to the Public Private Partnership Act, 2020 or to enter into such a contract under its own legal regime. It was equally up to the GDA as Contracting Authority to enter into the mechanism provided under the PPP Act, 2020, but if it has not made recourse thereto, it was having its own powers under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder to inter into Public Private Partnership for leasing out its property. The act of GDA in not entering into Public Private Partnership, as provided in PPP Act, 2020 would not, therefore, be suffering from illegality or want of lawful authority. Holding the other way round would lead to absurd consequences.
13. Another scenario might have been that the Provincial Government had decided to direct the authority to undertake the project under provisions of PPP Act. The Provincial Government was fully competent to issue directions to the Authority under provisions of GDA Act, particularly under Section 14 thereof, as discussed earlier. But in the case in hand, provincial government had not issued any such directions to the authority and has rather been supporting the authority in their endeavor of taking the project to fruition under Provisions of PPP Act. This Court had also called comments from Provincial Government which were submitted and Provincial Government had fully supported GDA as well as impugned transaction in their comments and have also stated that the project could be undertaken under GDA Act, by the GDA themselves. We may, therefore, conclude that on combined reading of the GDA Act and PPP Act harmoniously, we may come to the conclusion that it was optional for the contracting authority i.e. GDA as well as Provincial Government to have opted for undertaking the project under the provisions of PPP Act, but if neither of the two had opted thereof, rather had undertaken the project under GDA Act, read with GDA Auction Regulations, 2019 we do not find their decisions as invalid and unlawful or lacking lawful authority.
14. Besides, petitioners had themselves participated in the entire process and had raised an objection thereto after remaining unsuccessful in the bidding process. They were estopped for the reason that they have themselves participated in the process. In this respect, their prayer in writ petition was also to the effect that financial bid of respondent No. 6 be ordered to be set aside and that respondents be directed to issue Letter of Intent to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking issuance of letter of intent out of the same process, which has been argued by their learned counsel to be invalid and unlawful. Such acts create estoppel against the petitioner. Reliance in this respect may be placed on judgment in the case of "Travel Agents Association of Pakistan Vs. Pak Travel Agency (Pvt) Ltd." Reported as 1999 CLC Karachi 1962, "Rashidah Begum Vs. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle II Lahore" reported as 1986 MLD Lahore 1941 and "Inayatullah Hassan Vs. Bashirunnisa" reported as 1984 CLC Karachi 2463.
15. Regarding the process of bidding and subsequent issuance of letter of intent, learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that respondent No. 6 had submitted call deposit to the tune of rupees 6.5 million which was supposed to be 5% of the bid amount, but subsequently, the amount of bid has been given as 96 million which was less as calculated from amount of call deposit and this fact is sufficient to conclude that the authority had made them aware of the amount of bid which petitioner had offered. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with such far- fetched observation of learned counsel for the petitioner. The mere fact that call deposit amount has been deposited in excess of 5% of bid amount cannot be construed to have tainted the process of bidding in absence of any other material evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or material irregularity, sufficient for vitiating entire process.
Besides, it is not denied that bid of respondent No. 6 was on higher side cumulatively then petitioner.
16. In light of what has been discussed above, this writ petition bearing No. 803-A/2021 was found divested of any merits, which is dismissed.
Determination of controversy in Writ Petition No. 1137-A/2021
1. Petitioners in this petition have been aggrieved of the impugned process as well as resultant award of contract to Monal Group i.e. respondent No. 7 in this writ petition. They have raised a number of challenges to the impugned process but the gist of their objections, may be re-stated to the effect that the impugned agreement executed between GDA and Monal Group had been voilative of provisions of Forest Ordinance, 2002 as well as Wildlife Act. Besides, they have also been aggrieved of affecting the business of those stakeholders who have been presently conducting businesses at the dispute spot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain provisions of the contract wherein GDA has given blanket immunity to the lessees/second part of the contract i.e. Monal Group from provisions of Forest Ordinance as well as provisions of Wildlife Act. Learned counsel also contended that disputed spot was lying in a public park declared as such under the Wildlife Act, and therefore, no activity of construction at the terminal point of chairlift or road leading thereto might be allowed and such actions were violative of the provisions of valid laws occupying the field.
3. Learned counsel representing GDA stated that the property where chairlift has been installed is private property of the GDA which has been inherited by it from its predecessor i.e. Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust established under GDA Act of 1996 which had inherited it from Rawalpindi and Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust, established under Rawalpindi and Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust Act, 1961. He added that Forest Department had raised an issue over ownership of the land, but the provincial government has constituted a committee for resolution of such issue on 15th September, 2022 in chairmanship of Secretary-II, Board of Revenue, vide notification No. PSO/CS/KP/I-16/2022 dated 23rd September, 2022. He added that the area where provisions of Forest Act and Wildlife Act were applicable, same would continue to remain in force and by no stretch of imagination same were likely to lose its validity, because of some recitals in the impugned contract.
4. Private counsel for respondent No. 7 (Monal Group) also contended that petitioners counsel have been misconstruing provisions of the contract and same have not been running in contrast with any legal provision. Learned counsel also referred to clause 21.2 of the contract and stated that even if any clause in the contract had a potential of going in contrast with any law, same would be interpreted so as to give it an effect in accordance with and in subjugation to the laws.
5. Learned AAG supported arguments of learned counsel representing GDA, besides adding that the matter of dispute between two departments has not yet been finalized by the concerned department, therefore, same should be left to determination of the concerned departments.
6. So far as determination of disputes between Forest Department and GDA over ownership, determination of boundaries and other ancillary matters, are concerned, said issues being factual in nature cannot be determined in this petition. Besides, provincial government has also constituted a committee vide notification No. PSO/CS/KP/I-16/2022 dated 23rd September, 2022 which reads as follows:- "With reference to the meeting held under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa regarding Modernization of Ayubia Chairlift and issues of Makhniyal, dated Sept. 15th, 2022, a Commission is hereby formed with the following composition and TORs: Composition of the Commission i. Secretary-II Board of Revenue (Chairman) ii. Additional Secretary-I Tourism Department. iii. Chief Conservative Forest (Region-II) iv. Conservative Wildlife concerned. v. Director Admn. Director BCA and Draftsman GDA. vi. Local Revenue staff and GIS Specialist, as and when required.
TORs i. The commission will verify the ownership claims of the Forest Department and GDA on the said land after scrutinizing all the documents. ii. The Commission will also verify the documents presented by the department and GDA. iii. The Commission, if need be, can measure the said land on ground, keeping the legal requirement in view.
2. The Commission will submit its recommendations to the Committee under SMBR within four weeks."
7. We find it appropriate to leave this issue for determination at the end of Provincial Government as where ever there is a dispute between two departments of government, it should be placed before Provincial Cabinet as provided in Rule 8 (2) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985.
8. Coming to the other objection (i.e conflict of certain provisions of the contract with Forest Ordinance or Wildlife Act), it is important to be noted here that the GDA do not have authority to give exemption to anyone from provisions of any other law which is otherwise applicable to a particular situation. This Court cannot undertake an exercise of scrutinizing the impugned contract clause by clause, when a dispute has not yet arisen thereto. Such exercise may be taken by a court of competent jurisdiction on an occasion where a dispute is actually brought before it by the interested parties, but this Court can simply give a declaration that all the clauses of the contract shall be read in accordance with and in subordination to all applicable laws of the land. Those clauses which are found at any occasion, in conflict with any law or provisions thereto, same shall be severed from rest of the contract and treated as invalid and non-effective.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. Vs. Jain Studios Limited" reported as AIR 2006 SC 963, has held that when valid terms of agreement are severable from invalid terms thereof, the valid terms could be enforced while the objectionable part thereof may be ignored.
10. As and when an actual dispute as to validity of any clause of the contract happens to arise, same may be segregated by invoking doctrine of severance which exercise has also been provided in clause 21.2, to some extent.
Another objection of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no activity of construction, be that on a minor scale, could be allowed in Ayubia National Park and that allowing of such activities would be violative of Wildlife Act. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner was referring to Section 29 of the Act. But provisions of said Act do not aim at obviating all such activities in a national park. Clause (2) of Section 29 of the Act provides that National Park shall be accessible to public for the purpose of recreation, education and research, subject to such restrictions as government may impose. Sub Section (3) thereof provides that provision of access roads to and construction of rest houses, hostels and other buildings along with amenities for public may be so made, as not to impair the object of establishment of the National Park. Sub Section (4) of said Section provides that any facility provided under Section 2 and 3 shall be in conformity with the recommendations of the environmental impact assessment or initial environmental examination within the meaning of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
11. It is, therefore, quite clear that construction of public amenities and necessary roads have not been intended to be totally banned but regulated. Regarding regulating powers of the concerned authority, it has already been held that same would apply to the subject project with full force.
12. In light of what has been discussed above, the impugned contract was not found liable to be declared as illegal in toto, however, it is declared that all its provisions shall be read in accordance with and subject to all the prevalent laws of the land applicable in the area. Writ petition No. 1137- A/2021 is disposed of accordingly.