Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Section: 3(2)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199(1)

(a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--- ----R.48---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3(2), proviso---Infra-Court Appeal---Maintainability--Plea raised by Capital Development Authority was that Infra-Court appeal was barred in view of R.48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004---Validity---No remedy of review, revision or appeal was provided under R.48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, against Capital Development Authority's letter in question---Remedy of complaint to the Committee provided in R.48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, could not be equated with the remedy of review, revision or appeal which appeared to be totally different in nature and scope---Bar contained in proviso to S.3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, therefore, was not attracted---Intra-Court Appeal was maintainable in circumstances. (b) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--- ----Rr. 30 & 31---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra-Court Appeal---Bid, modification of---Parties took part in bidding for a contract in which respondent. was allowed to replace his insurance Guarantee with Call Deposit/Bank Guarantee---Plea raised by appellant was that such replacement was allowing, altering or modification of bid after opening of tender---Validity---Offer of respondent was initially rejected as invalid but was unlawfully revived and an opportunity was unlawfully and unduly given to respondent to amend the substitute its Insurance Guarantee with a Deposit at Call, one day later---Once the bids were opened, the procuring agency, could not allow any bidder to amend its bid so as to gain an unfair and undue advantage over others as any such indulgence was contrary to the norms of any bidding---Capital Development Authority had made a volte face as in pre-bid meeting held a few days earlier, it categorically told the bidding contractors that an Insurance Guarantee would not be allowed as bid security---Capital Development Authority's consultant found that the rates of respondent were unworkable which was totally ignored by the Authority---Judgment passed by single Judge of High Court was not sustainable and was set aside---Division Bench of High Court directed Capital Development Authority…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492