| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2951 2024 SLD 2951 2024 SCMR 947 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.As. Nos. 2226-L of 2021 to C.P.L.A. No. 2241-L of 2021, C.P.L.As. Nos. 2253-L of 2021 to C.P.L.A. No. 2255-L of 2021, C.P.L.A. No. 2270-L of 2021, C.P.L.A. No. 2277-L of 2021, C.P.L.As. Nos. 371-L of 2022 to C.P.L.A. No. 373-L of 2022 and C.P.L.A. N
PRESENT: SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL AND ATHAR MINALLAH, JJ
Ms. Samia Khalid, Addl. A.G. Pb., Zakir Shah, SLO, C&W., Rana Azhar, S.E. Highway and Muhammad Usama, XEN, Mian Muhammad Kashif, Advocate Supreme Court, Assisted by: Ms Alizeh Akbar, Advocate (in C.P. No. 2277-L of 2021) and Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate
C.P.L.As. Nos. 2226-L of 2021 to C.P.L.A. No. 2241-L of 2021, C.P.L.As. Nos. 2253-L of 2021 to C.P.L.A. No. 2255-L of 2021, C.P.L.A. No. 2270-L of 2021, C.P.L.A. No. 2277-L of 2021, C.P.L.As. Nos. 371-L of 2022 to C.P.L.A. No. 373-L of 2022 and C.P.L.A. N
PRESENT: SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL AND ATHAR MINALLAH, JJ
Ms. Samia Khalid, Addl. A.G. Pb., Zakir Shah, SLO, C&W., Rana Azhar, S.E. Highway and Muhammad Usama, XEN, Mian Muhammad Kashif, Advocate Supreme Court, Assisted by: Ms Alizeh Akbar, Advocate (in C.P. No. 2277-L of 2021) and Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY C&W, LAHORE AND OTHERS---APPELLANTS
VS
MESSRS HAROON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND OTHERS---RESPONDENTS
Law: Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014
Section: 27,56
(a) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014--- ----Rr.27 & 56---Tenders for construction works---Bidding documents---Additional performance security imposed by procuring agency---Legality---Bidding documents should comply with the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 (Rules) especially Rules 27 and 56---Procuring agency cannot introduce additional security in violation of the Rules---Procuring agency cannot require the bidder to pay additional performance security over and above the bid security and performance guarantee provided under Rules 27 and 56 of the Rules. The imposition of additional security not only disincentivizes the contractors trying to submit competitively low bids, but it also defies logic as the successful bidder has to give lesser security than the lowest bidder, who might not be a successful bidder, eventually. Where the lowest bidder becomes the successful bidder, he will have to furnish two securities while any other bidder who is not the lowest bidder, but has been declared successful bidder, must only furnish one security. This incongruence in the bidding documents leads to discrimination and offends the principles of public procurement. Therefore, compliance to the regulator framework becomes mandatory in public procurement to uphold the foundational principles of public procurement. Therefore, in the present case the insertion of additional performance security in the Bid Document and the follow up clauses dealing with the consequence of non-payment of additional performance security in the bidding document are beyond the scope of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 (Rules) being inconsistent with Rules 27 and 56 of the Rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the demand raised for the payment of additional performance security by the procurement agencies as being unlawful and violative of the Rules, and directed that any additional security to be imposed on a contractor can only be introduced through Rules to be framed by the Government so that the principles of procurement are met and there is transparency, level playing-field and non-discrimination in public procurement. (b) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014---…
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