KARACHI, Aug 2: A bench of the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to the provincial government against a judgment of the Sindh High Court in the case of cancellation of contract and blacklisting of a computer firm which was assigned to supply computers to the education department.

The bench also suspended the impugned orders of April 23 passed in suit No.904/2000 and July 9, 2002, passed in HCA 158/2002.

The bench, comprising Justice Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, passed the order on the appeal filed by Suleman Habibullah, AAG, against the SHC judgment of July 9, passed in HCA No.158 /2002.

The matter pertains to dispute over implementation of contract by M/s Ascom Technologies and the education department.

The government had sought the apex court’s indulgence against a division bench order in its appeal against a single judge order. The division bench had held that in termination of contract followed by blacklisting of the respondent, there was no impediment for the execution of phase-II through a fresh contract.

Although the SHC had not found the allegation of fraud established, it had nevertheless held that the question could be considered on its own merits even at a later stage.

While arguing for leave to appeal against this order in the Supreme Court, Mr Habibullah had pleaded the apex court to consider the point whether division bench had ignored from its consideration that the single judge had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and had violated the same.

Another point which emerged for consideration was whether respondent No.1 was blacklisted on charge of fraud, was not a proof of commission of fraud by him, when the same was not challenged.

The question also emerged that whether the High Court had erred by not refusing to send the dispute to arbitration, when the fraud has been proved through an inquiry, conducted by a probe committee, lawfully constituted by the governor of Sindh.

The point also emerged whether the impugned judgment of July 9, was vague and amounted to remanding the case back to single judge of the SHC, when directions were given that the agreement be filed in court, but the sole arbitrator had started proceedings of arbitration?