Nepotism alleged: Petition filed against train contract award
The petitioner said tenders had not been floated for the project
The petitioner said tenders had not been floated for the project. PHOTO: EXPRESS
LAHORE:
A writ petition challenging the awarding of the Orange Line Metro Train Project contract to CR-Norinco, a Chinese company, was filed on Thursday at Lahore High Court (LHC). Judicial Activism Panel, which filed the petition through Advocate Azhar Siddique, said the former Metro Bus Authority and now Mass Transit Authority had violated PPPA laws while awarding the contract to the company.
The petitioner said tenders had not been floated for the project and the contract was awarded to CR-Norinco without regard for transparency and merit. The panel said Clause 7 of the April 20 contract stipulated that the agreement would only come into effect following the conclusion of a loan agreement over the project. The petitioner said an agreement in this regard had been concluded with Ex Im Bank in January, 2016, at a high mark-up and without any competition.
The petitioner said the July 8, 2015 EIA decision of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was erroneous as the agency was short of personnel and equipment. The panel said the credentials of the company that had formulated the report were dubious. The judge sought replies by March 7.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 26th, 2016.
A writ petition challenging the awarding of the Orange Line Metro Train Project contract to CR-Norinco, a Chinese company, was filed on Thursday at Lahore High Court (LHC). Judicial Activism Panel, which filed the petition through Advocate Azhar Siddique, said the former Metro Bus Authority and now Mass Transit Authority had violated PPPA laws while awarding the contract to the company.
The petitioner said tenders had not been floated for the project and the contract was awarded to CR-Norinco without regard for transparency and merit. The panel said Clause 7 of the April 20 contract stipulated that the agreement would only come into effect following the conclusion of a loan agreement over the project. The petitioner said an agreement in this regard had been concluded with Ex Im Bank in January, 2016, at a high mark-up and without any competition.
The petitioner said the July 8, 2015 EIA decision of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) was erroneous as the agency was short of personnel and equipment. The panel said the credentials of the company that had formulated the report were dubious. The judge sought replies by March 7.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 26th, 2016.