1995 PLP 146 (MLD)

ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, ACTG., CJ. ‑‑‑By this application, the petitioner has sought that he be allowed to purchase the tender documents and participate in the tenders proposed to be opened on 16‑10‑1994. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 had earlier invited tenders from public for awarding contracts of clearing and forwarding and upcountry cartage on the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. As the tenders submitted did not meet the requirements, they were scrapped and fresh tenders were invited by advertisement dated 31‑8‑1994 and closing date for receiving tenders was fixed on 29‑9‑1994. The petitioners challenged the re-entering by way of filing these two petitions i.e. Civil Petitions Nos.2128/94 and 2129/94 on the ground that the petitioners were entitled to be awarded the contract in pursuance of the first tender. Pre'‑admission notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and by order dated 28‑9‑1994 the respondent No‑2 was restrained from opening or accepting the tenders till further orders of this Court. The matter came up for Katcha Peshi on 10‑10‑1994 when the Court while adjourning the same at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner vacated the stay granted earlier. The respondent No.2 has thereafter written to the tenderers, informing them that the tenders would be opened in their presence on 16‑10‑1994. It. is thereafter, that the application was filed by the petitioner claiming that he be allowed to participate in the tender which will be opened on 16‑10‑1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inasmuch as he was the petitioner and had filed this petition and valid grounds, he be at least permitted to participate in the tender, which is yet to be opened. Mr. Muhammad Farogh Nasim submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner cannot now be permitted to participate in the tender for the reasons, firstly, that the petition has not yet been admitted and no such application can be entertained "or considered at this stage, and, secondly, these tenders were invited on 31‑8‑1994, nearly two months agog and the last date for closing of the tenders was fixed on 29‑9‑1994 and the petitioners were free to participate in the tender but they chose not to do so, and as such closing date of tender having expired, if they were to permit any one including the petitioners to participate in the tenders, the respondents would be violating the terms of the advertisement, as well as the rules governing the subject. We find the contention of Mr. Farogh Nasim to be substantial. The petitioners could well have participated in the fresh tenders, but if they chose not to do so, they have to blame themselves. Admittedly, it would be encouraging the violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and of the rules bearing on the subject. In the circumstances, we find no substance in this application and dismiss it. AA./S‑1098/K??????????? Application dismissed.