| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1252 2012 SLD 1252 2012 CLD 1445 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Suit No.1294 of 2011 and C.Ms. Nos.11671, 10783, 11687and 11689 of 2011, decision dated: 30-01-2012. dates ofhearing: 14th, 16th, 20th and 21st December, 2011
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Shahenshah Hussain for Plaintiff.M. Ilyas Khan and Omer Siyal for Defendant.
Civil Suit No.1294 of 2011 and C.Ms. Nos.11671, 10783, 11687and 11689 of 2011, decision dated: 30-01-2012. dates ofhearing: 14th, 16th, 20th and 21st December, 2011
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Shahenshah Hussain for Plaintiff.M. Ilyas Khan and Omer Siyal for Defendant.
MESSRS SHAHEEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH MRS. ZEESHAN FATIMAVS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR
Law:
Section:
(a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--Rr. 15, 18, 19 & 36---Procurement through open competitive bidding---Scope---Mere prequalification of a prospective bidder would not create vested right in him to be directly selected for any prospective bid---Prospective bidder once having meted out pre-qualification criteria laid down for execution of a particular work could not be ousted from participating in financial bid by knocking him down while changing prequalifying criteria and that too without any lawful justification---Prequalified contractor would have vested right unless disqualified or blacklisted in terms of Rr. 18 & 19 of Public Procurement Rules, 2000 to directly compete in financial bidding---Principles. (b) Public Procurement Regulations, 2008--- ---- Regln. 3--- Procurement through open competitive bidding---Prequalification criteria change in---Scope---When prequalification was job specific, then any such change would not only be discriminatory but would be voilative of Regln.3 of Public Procurement Regulations, 2008---Process for asking prequalified contractors to go through prequalification process afresh and that too without any plausible or lawful justification would be without authority---Illustration. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 151, O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim relief/injunction or maintaining status quo, grant of---Scope---Ultimate/final relief claimed in a suit would normally be not granted as an interim measure, if same would create a new situation--- Mere directing parties in a suit for injunction to maintain status quo would neither amount to granting main relief nor creating a new situation. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others 1997 SCMR 1508 rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction against public functionaries, grant of--- Scope--- Where decisions of public functionaries were either mala fide or against law and/or rules, then same would be liable to be struck down, thus, balance of inconvenience in such case would hardly matter---Court could not ignore such violation…
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