Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Public Procurement Rules, 2004

Section: 3,4,12,14,20

(a) Constitution of Pakistan--.-- --.--Art. 199--.--Constitutional petition--.--Scope--.--Disputed question of facts--.--Recording of evidence--.--Principle--.--Respondent in a Constitutional petition cannot expect to have petition dismissed by making vague and general assertion to the effect that petitioner involves disputed questions of fact--.-- For a respondent to succeed on such score, he must identify disputed questions which cannot be resolved without recording of evidence. Saad Muhammad Shaheen Ali-Soofi v. Principal and Chairman Academic Council, Sindh Medical College 1982 CLC 805 and Shamim Khan v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority 1999 YLR 410 rel. (b) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--.-- --.--R. 3--.--Public procurement--.--Scope and object--.--Public Procurement Rules, 2004, are not exhaustive and do not cater for each and every eventuality that can be thought of in the realm of tender bidding--.--Public Procurement Rules, 2004, are codified norms and requirements of a fair, open, competitive and transparent tender bidding required to be conducted by government or public sector organizations. (c) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--.-- --.--Rr. 4, 12, 14 & 20--.--Re-procurement--.--Selective bidding--.--Petitioner participated in tender for installation of Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning equipment and was awarded the contract being the lowest bidder but due to certain differences the contract was cancelled--.--Authorities instead of re-advertising the project, adopted selective bidding among contractors pre-qualified in earlier tender and the contract was awarded to respondent--.--Validity--.--Method of selective bidding adopted by authorities for award of re-procurement contract did not satisfy requirements of Rr. 4 & 20 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004--.--Procedure adopted by authorities for award of re-procurement contract for supply of equipment without issuing an advertisement inviting bids for public was unlawful--.--Mere fact that an advertisement was published at a stage when bids were initially invited prior to the award of contract by authorities to petitioner did not absolve the authorities from initiating a…