| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2380 2016 SLD 2380 2016 PLD 479 2016 PLJ 215 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 62 and C.M.A. No. 543 of 2015, decided on 26thMarch, 2015. Dates of hearing: 29th January, 10th, 12th,19th, 25th, 27th February, 2015, 2nd, 4th, and 6th March,2015.
MOHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Faisal Siddiqui along with Muhammad Vawda for Plaintiff.Qazi Majid, A.A.G. and Zia-ud-Din Junejo, A.A.G for Defendants Nos.1 to 4.Haider Ali Khan along with Sarmad Hani for Defendant No. 5.A. Sattar Pirzada along with Mamoon Chaudhary for Defendant
Suit No. 62 and C.M.A. No. 543 of 2015, decided on 26thMarch, 2015. Dates of hearing: 29th January, 10th, 12th,19th, 25th, 27th February, 2015, 2nd, 4th, and 6th March,2015.
MOHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Faisal Siddiqui along with Muhammad Vawda for Plaintiff.Qazi Majid, A.A.G. and Zia-ud-Din Junejo, A.A.G for Defendants Nos.1 to 4.Haider Ali Khan along with Sarmad Hani for Defendant No. 5.A. Sattar Pirzada along with Mamoon Chaudhary for Defendant
MESSRS GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED PERSON--PlaintiffVSPROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND 7 others-----Defendants
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010
Section: 13,21,26,44
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--------- ----------Ss. 42 & 54---------Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, Rr. 13, 21, 26 & 44---------Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---------Suit for declaration and injunction---------Interim injunction, grant of---------Life saving medicine, procurement of---------Discrimination---------Plaintiff company was aggrieved of acceptance of tender by Provincial Government submitted by defendant company for a life-saving medicine---------Validity---------Provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, emphasized that there should be no discrimination in so far as procurement of goods, services and works were concerned---------Quality that was required could be asked to be matched with the best quality available in market---------Evaluation committee had to decide as to whether drugs of plaintiff were as good as the products which were required through tender---------When medicines/drugs were at least at par to each other, cost of life saving drugs would play a pivotal role as no justified reason was available to procure drug at a price of Rs.5000/- or more as against Rs.2100/- which was being provided by plaintiff---------Medicines in question were required for hepatitis patients on priority basis; therefore, authorities could opt to float tenders afresh for procurement in accordance with relevant laws---------Application was allowed, in circumstances. Case law referred. (b) Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010--------- ----------R. 4---------Procurements---------Discrimination---------Applicability---------Import of a term, which may oust any of the parties contesting bidding process, would amount to discrimination. (c) Sindh Public Procurement Act (IV of 2009)--------- ----------S. 2(a)---------Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, Rr. 2(cc), 23, 31, 32 & 32-A---------Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---------Procurement authorities---------Civil Courts, Justiceurisdiction of---------Scope---------Civil suits which are filed in terms of S.9, C.P.C., the presence of remedy in terms of Rr.31, 32 & 32-A, of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, does not bar civil suit---------No…