Law:

Section:

  Punjab Local councils (Contract);Rules,1990.; ----R. 4---Practice contrary to terms of public notice inviting tenders ---Effect--Contract for construction of road---Terms of public notice specified that prospective tendered was not obliged to present a "Call Deposit Receipt" at the time of obtaining tender documents  Petitioner was not supplied tender documents for the reason that he did not possess "Call .Deposit Receipt"--Respondent admitting non-supply of tender documents to petitioner on the ground that he could not show "Call Deposit Receipt" which was the practice with all Government departments---Effect---Such practice which was contrary to the terms of tender itself had no foundation and could': not lie approved. Punjab Local Councils (Contract) Rules, 1990- ----R. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (19'73), Art: 199---Discretionary jurisdiction, exercise of---Tender in question, having been awarded to respondent, work on the project was already in progress and half of that was complete---No useful purpose would be served by nullifying the contract awarded to respondent at such a late stage especially when work for public benefit was liable to suffer-- High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction especially because petitioner waited too long before filing Constitutional petition by which time contract in question, already stood awarded to -respondent and work on the project. had already started  Petitioner could have :approached with Court before the award of contract to respondent. Abid Aziz Rajoori for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Add1.A.-G. for Respondent No.1.   M.M. Afzal for Respondent No 22. . Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1992., ORDER. The dispute in this case relates to award of contract for the construction of soling on the Bank of Sem Nala, village Narooki District Gujranwala, which stands awarded to respondent No.2 on 14-11-1992. 2 Respondent No.1,had invited tenders for the construction of this work through Public Notice published in the Daily ."Pakistan". of second . November) 1992. According to the case of the petitioner, he approached respondent No.1…