| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 480 2022 SLD 480 2022 CLC 364 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.61452 of 2021, heard on 8th October, 2021. Date of hearing: 8th October, 2021.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Raiz Karim Qureshi and Farrukh Ilyas Cheema for Petitioner. Akhtar Javed, Additional Advocate General, Punjab along with Sadam Hussain, Assistant Director in the office of
Respondent No.2 and Jawad Kalim Ullah, XEN, Public Health Engineering Division, Mu
Writ Petition No.61452 of 2021, heard on 8th October, 2021. Date of hearing: 8th October, 2021.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Raiz Karim Qureshi and Farrukh Ilyas Cheema for Petitioner. Akhtar Javed, Additional Advocate General, Punjab along with Sadam Hussain, Assistant Director in the office of
Respondent No.2 and Jawad Kalim Ullah, XEN, Public Health Engineering Division, Mu
KHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH PARTNER/ATTORNEY
VS
PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH SECRETARY HUD AND PHED GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009
Section: 26&27
(a) Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (VIII of 2009)--- ----Ss.26 27---Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, Rr.17, 38 67---Technical bid---Disqualification on pre-qualification being a registered contractor contended that his technical bid was rejected without specifying any reasons and without giving him an opportunity to improve upon its technical bid---Held, that tender notice clearly mentioned that procedure of single stage two envelope bidding would be followed consisting of the technical and financial proposals participated in the bid on 27/09/2021 and was informed on 30/09/2021 that its technical bid did not meet the criteria applied on 07/10/2021 for the reasons for rejection of its technical bid and was informed of the same on the same day---Petition was filed on 04/10/2021 and on 05/10/2021 the Petitioner stated that it did not know the reasons as to why its technical bid was rejected was well aware of the law/rules, filed its application and was communicated the reasons; yet in an attempt to have its financial bid considered, the petitioner misrepresented itself before High Court and misstated the facts to get an opportunity to have its financial bid considered despite its technically deficiency filed present petition at district B instead of District A and impleaded the Secretary, HUD and PHE Department, who was not relevant to the present dispute so that its petition should be fixed at B deliberately/with mala fide intent had misled the Court by insisting that due procedure was not followed whereas record showed that the procedure was followed---Remedy was before the Grievance Committee yet, by abusing the process of law, petitioner filed present Petition was directed to pay cost in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for wasting the time of the Court and abusing the process of the Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. (b) Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (VIII of 2009)--- ----Ss.26 27---Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, R. 38---Technical bid---Single stage and two stage bidding---Distinction---Rule 38 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, had given three methods to select a contractor, (i) single stage two envelope bidding; (ii)…
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