Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 323 2010 SLD 323 2010 PLD 289
Lahore High Court
I.-C.As. Nos. 951 and 991 of 2009, in Writ Petitions Nos. 11923 and 12808 of 2009, decided on 5th April, 2010
NASIR SAEED SHEIKH AND MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JJ
Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Appellant (in ICA No. 951 2009). Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Appellant (in ICA No. 991 of 2009). Umar Sharif Legal Advisor for Pakistan Railways for
Respondents Nos.1 to 5. Salman Aslam Butt for
Respondent

Messrs MALIK MUSHTAQ GOODS TRANSPORT CO., Lahore

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Railways, Islamabad and 9 others

Law: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)

Section: 1(2)(3),2(j),26

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)--- ----S. 1(2)(3), 2(j) & 26---Public Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr.2(c), 3, 4, 20, 34(2), 40, 42 & 48---Auction of contract of luggage vans attached with railway trains running on specified routes---Failure of auction proceedings to procure satisfactory offers and return of call-deposits to bidders---Offer of revised bid by respondent-bidder finalized through private negotiation---Acceptance of revised bid and awarding of contract to respondent for one year through letter issued by authority without signing any formal agreement---Validity---Authority could not show any law, rule, regulation and instruction permitting Pakistan Railways to award contract without inviting bids---Authority had not undertaken fresh process of inviting bids through proper publication---Pakistan Railways being a department of Federal Government would fall within definition of "procuring agency" as given in S.2(j) of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Concept of open competitive bidding introduced by Public Procurement Rules, 2004 was with a view to ensure a transparent exercise of powers by a procuring agency in awarding of its contract-Awarding of contract through negotiations was specifically prohibited by R.40 of Rules, 2004--Transparent exercise of powers by public authorities in awarding contracts of valuable rights was always insisted---Emergent situation to bypass competitive bidding process as provided in R.42(v) of Rules, 2004 did not exist in the present case---No order of competent authority was available on record for adopting process of negotiation for awarding contract to respondent---Process for award of contract to respondent was not only without lawful authority, but same had been conducted in a non-transparent manner, thus, could not be sustained in eye of law---Running of contract by respondent on account of injunctive order of High Court would not justify to give protection to illegal and non-transparent method of awarding contract by authority---No complaint in the present case had been made to Committee under R.48(2) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 nor had any order…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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