| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 925 2016 SLD 925 2016 CLC 125 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P.No. 537 of 2011, heard on 19th May, 2015. Date ofhearing: 19th May, 2015.
SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J
Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch. and Ms. Kashifa Niaz Awan for Petitioner.Muhammad Nazir Jawad for CDA.Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari, ASC for
Respondent No. 5.
W.P.No. 537 of 2011, heard on 19th May, 2015. Date ofhearing: 19th May, 2015.
SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J
Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch. and Ms. Kashifa Niaz Awan for Petitioner.Muhammad Nazir Jawad for CDA.Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari, ASC for
Respondent No. 5.
Ch. ATA-UR-REHMAN QADRIVSCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
Law:
Section:
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)--- ----S. 2(h)---Public Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr.42 & 50---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Mis-procurement---Alternative methods of procurements---Applicability---Dispute was with regard to awarding of contract by Capital Development Authority to respondent to ply shuttle coaches for Diplomatic Enclave in Islamabad---Plea raised by petitioner was that contract was awarded in violation of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Validity---Assigning of work subject matter of the petition did not fall in any exceptions provided in R.42 of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004, therefore, it was "mis-procurement" as defined in S.2(h) of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and R.50 of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004---Entire process was engineered, manipulated and person specific for the respondent---No record of award of contract / license to respondent from years, 2002 to 2008, was available with Capital Development Authority---Respondent failed to advance any reason of assumption of municipal administration work/functions by planning directorate of Capital Development Authority---High Court set aside the contract in question as assigning of contract/work to respondent was illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2004, dictums laid down by Supreme Court, offensive to the universally accepted principles of fairness, honesty, transparency, openness and was result of colourable exercise of authority, irrelevant considerations, a naked corruption, polluted mannerism, offensive to public exchequer and an infringement to constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and a glaring example of discrimination, favoritism, nepotism, ulterior motives and stinking approach to advance personal agenda---High Court directed Chairman Capital Development Authority to immediately take possession of the site, initiate disciplinary proceedings against all officials of Capital Development Authority who…