設為首頁收藏本站

A-Plus互動討論區

 找回密碼
 立即註冊

Login

免註冊即享有會員功能

搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 18|回復: 0
打印 上一主題 下一主題

Nike Air Max Australia Cheap n5qvmviy

[複製鏈接]

1萬

主題

1萬

帖子

4萬

積分

論壇元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

積分
45633
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
發表於 2019-2-11 03:27:53 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
分享到: 更多
Ramon Gaskin has moved, once again, to the High Court to challenge for a second time to quash Government’s decision to award a $15M USD contract to Synergy Holdings Inc. for the design and building of a road from Linden to Amaila Falls to facilitate the construction of a planned 230 KV transmission line.The motion was filed on the grounds that the decision and award were made in breach and disregard of articles 212W and 212FF of the constitution, the Procurement Act 2003 Act No. 8, and cites the Minister of Public Works and National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) as the respondents.Gaskin, on June 10, through his attorneys Senior Counsel Rex McKay, Fitz Peters, Neil Boston and Christopher Ram, had previously moved to the court for an order directed to the two respondents to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued to quash the decision made by the government to award the Synergy Holdings Inc. the contract.They had also sought an order prohibiting the Minister of Public Works and Communication and the Executive Director of NICIL from taking any step or further steps in connection with the said contract awarded to Synergy Holdings Inc.Gaskin had contended that the Government, the Ministry of Public Works and Communication, and NICIL did not conduct the tender process for the Amaila Falls project in accordance with and under the mandatory provisions laid down in the Procurement Act and regulations, and was in breach of the constitutional intendment for transparency and fairness.That matter was heard by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on June 15 and June 16, who refused to grant the order that he sought on several grounds.The Chief Justice had refused to grant the initial order,China NFL Jerseys, making reference to, among other things, that the applicant’s primary motive for making the application appeared to have been a genuine disapproval of the personality of the successful bidder.The Chief Justice had pointed out that Section 30 of the Procurement Act reveals nothing that prohibits a procuring entity from authorising an agency such as NICIL, to act on its behalf.According to Gaskin, the most recent motion is an application for ‘similar purpose’ which in effect is not an appeal of the chief justice’s decision on the initial motion.As advised by his lawyers, he is contending that the Chief Justice’s decision was erroneous in point of law in as much as he “failed to exercise his discretion according to judicial principles, and by finding that the government of Guyana had the authority to carry out the functions of a ‘procuring entity’ under the Procurement Act, the learned Chief Justice was wrongly reading words into the Procurement Act in breach of the basic principle of statutory interpretation.”In his affidavit in support of the second motion, Gaskin said that the Chief Justice also found that in exercising its functions as a ‘procuring entity’ the government had authority to delegate functions to NICIL in disregard of the provisions of Section 27 of the Interpretation and General Clauses act chap. 2:01.Gaskin is maintaining that the failure of the government to appoint a Public Procurement Commission as mandated by article 212-W of the constitution infects and interferes with the proper functioning of the Procurement Act.He is further contending that the government, being desirous of constructing a hydropower station at Amaila Falls in Region Eight, unlawfully and in breach of Section 30 of the Act, authorised NICIL to invite ‘requests for a proposal for a design and build road and transmission line project from Georgetown to Amaila Falls’.According to Gaskin, on April 20, last, the Ministry of Finance issued a press release explaining that “the contract for the job is between the government of Guyana via the Ministry of Public Works and Synergy Holdings Inc.” and not NICIL.This recent court move could likely affect the commencement date for the project which is July 15.However, there appears to be no move on the part of the contractor to commence on that date, since machinery to facilitate the project have reportedly not yet arrived in Guyana.
回復

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 立即註冊

本版積分規則

重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,A-Plus補習討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。A-Plus補習討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言(刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知),同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。

手機版|小黑屋|A-Plus互動討論區    

GMT+8, 2024-4-27 02:13 , Processed in 0.070020 second(s), 26 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表