2023 PLP 1403 (MLD)
PEACE ENTERPRISES through Sole Owner — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1403 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PEACE ENTERPRISES through Sole Owner — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1403 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 1403 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1403 (MLD) (PEACE ENTERPRISES through Sole Owner — Petitioner Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Ejaz Nazir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 44
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10
Scope
Petitioner sought direction to the respondents to issue work orders for a construction project
Contention of petitioner was that he had submitted the lowest bid but despite that his bid was not being processed
Petitioner had submitted his blank/incomplete tender application form before the relevant authority for different works which were forthwith rejected, whereas, the tendering process had been completed
Project was allotted in favour of four different contractors
Petitioner had failed to array the contractors' as parties in the writ petition
Contractors were necessary parties being beneficiaries
This sole ground was suffice for dismissal of the writ petition along with other reasons
Writ petition was dismissed.
O. I, R. 10
Scope
No effective order or decision can be rendered in absence of a necessary party.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHID BAHAR, J.
The captioned writ petition has been filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, with the prayer to direct the respondents to issue the work orders of the construction works namely the removal of slip slides and protection at Malot to Sahar Road Chaksawari KM 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 LA-2 Chaksawari District Mirpur in favour of Peace Enterprises Mirpur.
2. Shortly stated facts of the supra titled writ petition are that respondent/Highways department issued a tender notice on 01.03.2022 for construction of different works from Malot to Sahar Road Chaksawari KM 3, 4,7,11 LA-2 Chaksawari District Mirpur and the petitioner being the owner of Peace Enterprises Firm also applied and petitioner's bide stood lowest among all the contractors, having rates 62.5% much below the prevailing schedule rates. As per contents of petition, the petitioner also submitted an application for issuance of work order before the Executive Engineer, respondent No.5 but he refused to process the bids, hence, this writ petition to direct the respondents to issue to work order of the supra work in favour of petitioner.
3. Comments on behalf of respondents have been filed, whereby, it has been stated that the tenders were opened on 29.03.2022 at 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. in presence of the contractors and the rate list was also prepared and beside the other contractors, the owner of the Peace Enterprises Firm was also present and he put his signature on the tender sheet and when the bids were opened in presence of all the contractors, no signature was found on the bid deposited on behalf of the petitioner and neither the rates have been mentioned and this mistake was also admitted by the petitioner. It has been stated that the biding process was completed purely in accordance with law and no illegality on behalf of the respondents has been committed. Finally, the respondents requested for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
4. The learned counsel for the parties argued the case as per their respective pleadings.
5. After hearing the pro and contra arguments and parawise comments as well as record of the case, it reveals that the petitioner submitted his blank/incomplete tender application/form before the relevant authority on 28.03.2022 for different works which were forthwith rejected (as it is evident on the facsimile of the form), whereas, the tendering process was completed and concluded on 29.03.2022, resultant of the same the aforesaid work was accordingly allotted in favour of four different contractors vide letter dated 21.04.2022 respectively in the following manner:-
1. Messrs ICB Chilla Builders Alam Plaza Kotli Road District Mirpur (A.K) for removal of Slip Slides and protection work at Malot Sahar Road Km. No.7 LA-02 Chakswari, District Mirpur (AK);
2. Messrs Raja Sohail Nadeem Taste in Traders New Larri Adda Jatlan District Mirpur (A.K) for removal of Slip Slides and protection work at Malot Sahar Road Km. No.3 LA-02 Chakswari, District Mirpur (AK);
3. Messrs Raja Nadeem Sohail Taste in Traders New Larri Adda Jatlan District Mirpur (A.K) for removal of Slip Slides and protection work at Malot Sahar Road Km. No.3,1 LA-02 Chakswari, District Mirpur (AK);
4. Messrs E.A.C.0 Plot No.11 Kotli Road F-1 District Mirpur (A.K) for removal of Slip Slides and protection work at Malot Sahar Road Km. No.05 LA-02 Chakswari, District Mirpur (AK).
6. Be that as it may the petitioner has failed to array the necessary parties in the instant writ petition. No cavil to the proposition that the abovementioned contractors who are beneficiary of the abovementioned work are necessary party and it is settled law that no effective order or decision can be rendered in absence of necessary party. Ready references in this regard are the case titled "Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian" 1992 SCR 214 and "Mohammad Naseem Khan v. Mohammad Akbar Khan" 2003 SCR
142. Thus, this sole ground is suffice for dismissal of the writ petition along with inter alia other reasons. In view of above, the instant writ petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limine. SA/77/HC(AJ&K) Petition dismisse