| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1371 2015 SLD 1371 2015 CLC 1589 |
Peshawar High Court
W.P. No.1939-P of 2014, decided on 20th November, 2014.
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J. AND M. GHAZANFAR KHAN, J
Akram Sheikh and Khalid Mehmood for Petitioners. Shumail Ahmad Butt for
Respondents. Umair Majeed Malik for added
Respondent No. 6.
W.P. No.1939-P of 2014, decided on 20th November, 2014.
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J. AND M. GHAZANFAR KHAN, J
Akram Sheikh and Khalid Mehmood for Petitioners. Shumail Ahmad Butt for
Respondents. Umair Majeed Malik for added
Respondent No. 6.
SINOTEC CO. LIMITED through Authorized Representative
VS
PROVINCE OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary, Energy and Power Department and 5 others
Law:
Section:
Pakhtunkhwa Hydel Development Organization Act (I of 1993)--- ----S. 22 [as amended by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Hydel Development Organization (Amendment) Act (V of 2013)]---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (XI of 2012), S.35---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Procurement Rules, 2014, Rr.47 & 48---Instructions to Bidders, Cls.22.3 & 32---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199, 4 & 129---Constitutional jurisdiction---Bid, cancellation of---Scope--- Contention of petitioner-company was that cancelling/annulling the tender process for the projects was illegal and arbitrary---Validity---Every scheme prepared by Hydel Development Organization should be processed in accordance with Government procedures and instructions---Hydel Development Organization was required to submit to the Government periodical reviews and other reports required by it---Chief Minister of the Province was the Chairman of the Hydel Development Organization---Executive authority of the Province should act through the Chief Minister---Government might issue instructions to Energy Development Organization with regard to every scheme prepared by it---Government was the custodian of finances of the State and should protect financial interest of the same---Government should try to get the best person or the best quotation---Right to choose could not be considered to be an arbitrary power---If said power was exercised for any collateral purpose, the exercise of such power would be struck down---Bid of petitioner-company contained a separate discount letter with its bid---Submission of discounted price through a separate letter could not be considered---Petitioner-company was required to have quoted total price instead of unit price---Petitioner-company was neither main contractor nor the sub-contractor in the subject project---Proper opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner-company---Right of appeal was available to the petitioner-company but the same had not been availed---Authority reserved the right to accept or reject all bids at any time prior to award of contract---Grounds of rejection of bid should be communicated to bidder who had submitted bid without…
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