In the case of semi-scheduled generating units, identified by the unconstrained intermittent generation forecast;
In the case of. HARIS BIN HASSAN JANG Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others” (2021 CLC 413), this 1https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/June-2020/Creative-Use-of-the-ROW-During-the-Pandemic.aspxCourt while dealing with the question of banning political gathering due to the COVID-19 situation on the ground that it is apprehensive to the fundamental right of life provided and guaranteed by the Constitution, observed that SOPs issued by the Government as a safety preventive measures to cope up with the pandemic disease are binding and obligatory upon the participants of such gatherings, if holding such gatherings is permitted by the Government, under Article 5(2) of the Constitution. It was held that:-“The word "inviolable" used in Article 5(2) of the Constitution means that it is never to be broken and infringed. In the case of President Balochistan High Court Bar Association and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 1784), august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "to be loyal to the State is the basic duty of all citizens and they have to be obedient to the Constitution and the law, wherever they may be. Thus, adherence to the Constitution and the Law by the citizens is mandatory. Non-compliance of the Constitution and the Law makes a citizen liable for action, in accordance with law". It would also include principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety. Laws are always made not to be violated but to be obeyed. In Suo Motu Case No.15 of 2009 (PLD 2012 SC 610) august Supreme Court of Pakistan held that "it is expected from every citizen of Pakistan that he shall be loyal to the State and the basic duty of every citizen is to be obedient to the Constitution and law as ordained under Article 5 of the Constitution." Respect for law is never maintained by force but by the appreciation of the reasons, appreciating its veracity and through obedience. Unfortunately, sometimes, the law falls in crisis due to misunderstanding or lack of vision.
In the case of. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers5, though in Sections 245D(4) and 245D(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the terminus point for charging interest was not specifically provided, this Court, applying the principle of harmonious and contextual construction, held that they have to be charged in the spirit of Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act. Holding this, this Court observed thus:
In the case of selective tendering procedures: to what extent are entities allowed to use permanent lists of suppliers or is there a requirement for lists of suppliers to be selected on a contract-by-contract basis? According to Act No. 94/2001, entities are not allowed to use permanent lists of suppliers. According to Article 18 of Act No. 94/2001, in all other instances than those provided for by Articles 19 (negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice) and 20 (negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice), the open procedure or the restricted procedure shall be applied. A pre-qualification process shall always be applied prior to the restricted procedure. A pre-qualification process is subject to the rules on open procedure as applicable. According to Article 34 of the Act in restricted and negotiated procedures, pre-qualification shall be applied to select those parties invited to submit tenders. In the case of restricted procedures, or negotiated procedures as provided for in Article 19, pre-qualification shall be advertised in a conspicuous manner with the intention of providing all parties who can provide the supply, service or work in question, the opportunity of participating in the pre-qualification. In the case of restricted procedures, the number of participants selected to be invited to tender may be limited. As a rule, participants shall not be fewer than five or more than 20 in number. The number of participants selected must, in all cases, be sufficient to ensure genuine competition in the procedure. If the number of participants to be selected in pre-qualification is to be limited, mention must be made of such in the tender documents. In the case of negotiated procedures as provided for in Article 19, the number of participants to be selected in pre-qualification to submit tenders shall not be fewer than three, as long as the number of participants is sufficient. In restricted or negotiated procedures, the parties selected for participation by a pre-qualification shall be invited to submit a tender in a notification sent to all of them concurrently. The notification shall be accompanied by tender documents and accompanying documentation, where applicable.
In the case of employees of the University refer the matter to the appropriate management of the University for the decision as to whether the staff member should, having regard in all the circumstances, be dismissed.
In the case of. Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and another = Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and another Vs. Union of India and another , AIR 2002 S. C. 2112 = 2002 AIR-SCW 2186 = (2002) 5 SCC 294 [Three Judges] , The Supreme Court, directed the Election Commission of India to issue necessary orders, in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution, to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper furnishing therein information relating to his conviction / acquittal / discharge in any criminal offence in the past, any case pending against him of any offence punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more, information regarding assets (movable, immovable, bank balance etc.) of the candidate as well as of his / her spouse and that of Dependants, liability, if any, and the educational qualification of the candidate. The Apex Court sum up the legal and constitutional position as under ;-