Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 371 2006 SLD 371 2006 CLD 674
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No.D-1149 of 2005, decision dated: 22-11-2005
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE
Shaeq Usmani for Petitioner. Abrar Hassan for
Respondent No. 1.

ALABBAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED

VS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art.199---Constitutional petition---Writ of mandamus---Scope---If action of public functionary in awarding contract lacks transparency, writ of mandamus would lie. Pacific Multinational {Pvt.) Limited v. I.-G. Police PLD 1992 Kar. 283 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Interpretation of document---Awarding of contract---Use of word 'may' in guidelines to bidding---Technical and financial aspects of bids---Evaluation---Petitioner-Company was declared pre-qualified for bid of the project and after short-listing, petitioner and respondent-Company submitted their bids with necessary documents---After evaluation of the documents by the consultants of the project, contract was awarded to respondent-Company---Plea raised by petitioner was that tt was the lowest bidder and specific clauses of post bid process were completely overlooked by the Authorities while awarding contract to respondent-Company---Validity---Word used in the relevant paragraph of the guidelines for bidding was 'may' which did not make it obligatory on the part of the Authorities to hold post bid meeting with the contesting parties---Authorities had rightly relied upon evaluation report, which dealt with all aspects and opinion of the Authorities---After evaluation report of committee, holding post bid meeting was insignificant for want of technical expertise---Report of Evaluation Committee ran into 50 to 60 pages and each and every aspect of bid documents submitted by the parties was examined---Mere non-inviting petitioner to post bid meeting would not nullify recommendations of Evaluation Committee---Even otherwise nature of the terms contained in bid were procedural/directory in nature and would, in no way, be termed as mandatory in nature to nullify award of contract in favour of respondent-Company---Project of such nature was dependent on expertise and professionalism which could only be examined by experts---Consultant had sufficient experience in such projects and it having recommended award of contract in favour of respondent-Company, High Court, in writ of mandamus, would not nullify such award of contract…
🔒
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