2002 PLP 1063 (MLD)

Muhammad Rashid Ahmad for Respondents Nos.3 to

5. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1997 The case has been heard at length as such with the conccurrence of the parties, it is decided as Pakka matter. The petitioner an "A" Class Contractor and also holding Licences No.2925 from the Pakistan Engineering Council has taken exception to the proceedings of 7th October, 1997 whereby his offer was rejected in spite of the fact that he was the lower one in all the items despite that, contract has been given to respondents Nos.3 to

5. Facts briefly for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that respondent No. 1 invited tenders from registered contractors for 19 development works through publication appeared in the local newspaper `Zaroorat' dated 4‑8‑1997. The petitioner alongwith all others submitted the tenders which were opened in the presence of all concerned on 4‑9‑1997. A comparative statement was prepared by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, whereby the rates offered by the petitioner in respect of six items numbering 8, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were declared lowest and for the rest of 13 works one Messrs Qamar and Company was declared lowest: Thereafter all the other contractors including respondents Nos.3 to 5 withdrew their call deposits. Subsequently the executive officer i.e. respondent No.1 submitted the tenders which were lowest for formal approval. The petitioner was called upon to justify his lowest rate for each work and in response thereto he submitted a detailed report. Grievance is made that instead of accepting the offer of the petition which was the lowest the work has been awarded to the highest tenderer on the rates allegedly evolved by the respondents as base line. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been meted out a discriminatory treatment in spite of the fact that he was the lowest tenderer for those items but the same have been given in violation of rules and instruction to respondents Nos.3 to 5 involving huge burden upon the exchequer. In this respect he undertakes that he is still ready and willing to perform the contract on the lowest rates offered by him in accordance with the specification. He has further stated that throughout his career of 15 years of his contractorship, there is not a single complaint against him. Mr. Yawar Ali Khan, D.A.G. as well as Mr. Altaf‑ur-Rehman have entered appearance for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while Mr. Muhammad Rashid Ahmad learned counsel has appeared for respondents Nos.3 to 5, and have advanced their arguments. I have considered their contentions and have gone through the comments submitted by respondent No.

1. It is not denied in the comments that the rates of the petitioner were the lowest one. Since according to the respondents, the rates submitted by the petitioner were not prima facie workable as such the matter was entrusted to GE(Air) by the Members of the Cantonment Board, Sargodha, to probe into the matter further. It was found out by him that the rates of the petitioner were non‑workable as such it was evolved by the Board that the base/bottom line rates determined by the GE(Air), a technical member of the Board be taken into consideration. Accordingly petitioner and his sister concern firm were called to justify their rates which according to the comments were not satisfactory. The detailed analysis and justification given by the petitioner and his sister concern were examined/scrutinized by GE(Air) in another meeting of the Board and ultimately asked respondents Nos.3 to 5 whose rates were highest to show their willingness for the reduction of their rates so as to bring the same to the level of base line formulated by GE(Air). Respecting the petitioner, it has simply been stated in the report that the justification) analysis submitted by him was having inherent technical flaws and was neither confidence‑inspiring nor based on existing facts and figures. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before this Court in categorical terms that the petitioner is still ready and willing to perform the contract at the lowest rates given by him. He also undertakes to deposit ten per cent. of the actual amount of the contract as security apart from the required one to show his bona fide. Further stated that in case the work is not according to the specification the respondent would be well within their right not only to confiscate the security but also take other proper action. In this view of the matter, I fail to understand as to why the contract was not given to the petitioner who has got unblemished record till date as a contractor. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has even failed to point out any complaint whatsoever against him. He is the lowest for six items and is still ready to perform his part according to the specification. In these circumstances, this writ petition is accepted with a direction that the contract be given to the petitioner for those six items. As undertaken above, he would ensure that the work should be completed without waste of time strictly in accordance with the specification. The petitioner provide extra 10% Bank guarantee of the whole for??????????? in accordance with the specification. This would be apart from others provided in the contract. H.B.T./A‑446/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition Accepted