2020 PLP 998 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioner has called in question the impugned judgment/order dated 04-03-2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil 1st Appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff and has also rejected the suit of the present petitioner/plaintiff holding that matter in dispute is a development scheme and jurisdiction of Civil Courts over the matters regarding development schemes has been ousted by the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court vide judgment/order dated 22-5-2009 passed in C.S.A. No. 03/09 titled "Ahlayan-e-Chaprote v. Provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan".

2. Briefly facts giving rise to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the respondent No.1 published an advertisement in news paper daily Salam inviting tenders for various projects including the disputed project i.e. construction of Middle School Tero Tehsil Gupis District Ghizer from contractors. The present petitioner/ plaintiff participated in the process of bidding. On 27-9-2018 the bids were opened and the plaintiff/petitioner was declared lowest bidder and was declared entitled to award the contract for construction of Middle School Teru. The respondent/defendant No. 1 issued work orders to other contractors for construction of various development schems/projects but he did not issue the work order to the present petitioner/plaintiff on the pretext that the impugned project is to be upgraded from GI sheer roofing to RCC roofing, this act of the respondents/defendants is illegal and against the interest of the petitioner, therefore, the respondents/defendants may be directed to issue work order in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. The respondents / defendants contested the suit by way of filing written statement in the Trial Court wherein the respondents/defendants have raised certain legal objections and have also repudiated the averments made in the plaint.

4. Along with plaint the plaintiff/present petitioner had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The learned Trial Court after obtaining replication and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment/order dated 23-02-2019 which was challenged by the present petitioner/plaintiff in the Court of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit through a Civil 1st Appeal. The learned Additional District Judge Gilgit after hearing arguments on behalf of the both the parties has dismissed the aforesaid Civil 1st Appeal of the petitioner and has also rejected the plaint of the plaintiff/ petitioner vide the impugned judgment/ order dated 04-03-2019, hence this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Courts below are vague, perverse, self contradictory and against the spirit of law and justice as such liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further argued the petitioner/plaintiff has an arguable case and fulfills all ingredients/conditions which are required for grant of temporary injunction but the learned trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner, hence the impugned judgment/order passed by the 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General and Legal Advisor Education Department controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the Impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court by contending that under rule 33(1) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 the respondents can reject all or any bid without any justification at any time before acceptance of bid. The learned Additional Advocate General and L.A Education Department further argued that petitioner/plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner and if the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, the plaintiff shall not suffer irreparable loss. The learned A.G and legal Advisor Education Department further argued that residents of village teru Tehsil Phandar through resolution had demanded to change School Building design proposed with GI sheet roofing and requested for RCC roofing, with double Storey building due to scarcity of land in village Teru and the request of the residents of Teru has been accepted by the competent authority and now the building is being constructed in RCC roofing, therefore, the respondents want to re-tender the disputed project in the interest of public and the petitioner may also participate in the tender process.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record/ material available on file with their able assistance.

8. For issuance of an interim injunction what the Court has to see is that a good prima facie arguable case is made out in favour of the plaintiff and if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a good prima facie arguable case then other two ingredients irreparable loss and balance of convenience would be looked into. The Court has to make only a tentative assessment of the plaintiff's case.

9. In the instant case the plaintiff has filed a suit for only declaration and plaintiff has not sought relief of permanent or temporary injunction in his suit/plaint as consequential relief as such the Court cannot grant interim injunction in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, thus the petitioner/ plaintiff has failed to make out a good prima facie arguable case in his favour. Moreover, admittedly loss allegedly to be suffered by the plaintiff appears to be measurable in terms of money, which does not come within the ambit of irreparable loss. In this connection my this view is fortified by the reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2002 SCMR 1269.

10. Further more as per record the answering respondents have not accepted the lowest bid of the present petitioner/ plaintiff and under the provisions of rule 33(1) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 the procuring agency may reject all bids or proposal at any time prior to the acceptance of a bid or proposal.

11. For the foregoing reasons, and facts, I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie arguable case for grant of injunction in his favour. The balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. As such I am not inclined to grant discretionary relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and therefore, this revision is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. File after due completion be consigned to record. ZC/98/GB Revision dismissed.