IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J. -- It is argued that respondent No. 5 has been given lease secretly without proper advertisement and much below the prevalent rate. In this behalf, it is added that very next block was let out to the petitioner for Rs. 15,42,000/- whereas this block has been given by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 5 for Rs. 100,000/- only. It is added that respondent No. 5 was already defaulter to the tune of Rs. 2,75,5001-. In nutshell the argument is that respondent No. 5 has been allowed benefit at the cost of the exchequer.
2. Admit: Notice.
3. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.G. Is present on Court's call. Let copy of the petition be made over to him. He is directed to file written statement on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
C.M. No. 1/1998. This is an application for dispensing with submission of certified copies of unspecified documents, therefore, dismissed.
C.M. No. 2/1998. Notice for 5.8.1998. In the meanwhile the impugned Work Order in favour of respondent No. 5 is suspended.
C.M. No. 3/1998. This is an application to withdraw the writ petition.
4. The application is allowed while the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, copy of writ petition alongwith order dated 15.7.1998 be sent to the Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team.