LAHORE – Justice Asad Munir of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday issue notice to the Chairman National Highways Authority (NHA) and Evolves Company which was given Motorway/Highways advertising and promotional contracts by the authority at low rates by violating rules at the cost of loss to national kitty.
The judge directed the respondents NHA and the contractor company to file reply positively within three weeks. The order came on the petition against NHA which was filed by Muhammad Imran Chohan through his counsel Muhammad Amin Goraya advocate, alleging NHA of kickbacks and massive corruption in awarding Highways advertising contracts.
The petitioner submitted that in 2005 NHA gave a contract of advertising rights to Evolves company for a period of 5 years at Rs 1.3 million per annum rate for using Lahore to Sahiwal Motorway (M-5) for advertising purposes. The petitioner stated that in 2006 NHA committing mishandling and corruption gave additional advertising rights to the said company to use Lahore to Kalashah Kakoo Motorway (M-2) without charging any money for it and the company utilized M-2 for free.
The petitioner submitted that as the contract for M5 was for 5 year it expired in 2010 starting from 2005 but the NHA extended the contract with the Evolves for additional two years without giving tenders for it. The petitioner said that the NHA instead of increasing the rates gave special favour to Evolves contractor by reducing annual advertising rates from Rs 1.3 million per year to Rs 0.8 million per year causing loss to State.
The petitioner said NHA could not extend the 5 year contract or reduce annual rates without giving tender for open competition to the contractors. He alleged that NHA did not give the tenders only to benefit the company and it made money out of underhand deal with the company.
The NHA authorities concerned by the mishandling caused a loss of Rs 0.5 million per year to the department and the government as the contract rates could jump up if its tender had been issued for new bidding but the same was not done despite the fact that rules of the business require it.
After hearing arguments of the petitioner counsel the court sought reply from the NHA and the company in three weeks.
