MLD 2004

2004 PLP 21 (MLD)

PUBLIC HEALTH CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition Nu.3740 of 2002/BWP, decided on 16th October, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 21 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
Parties PUBLIC HEALTH CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 21 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 21 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 21 (MLD) (PUBLIC HEALTH CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ ‑Contract, awarding of‑‑‑Pre -qualification of contractors‑‑‑Petitioner‑Corporation had sought issuance of direction to the Authority allowing the petitioner to participate in tenders invited through advertisement for different projects and a further direction to the Authority for not pre‑qualifying contractors and issuance of tender form without imposing any condition‑ ‑‑Authority had contended that it was not going to pre‑qualify the contractors and that pre‑qualification was not a pre‑condition to participate in the tender and that no impediment/clog had been put on contractors to participate in the tenders‑‑‑Letter issued by Public Health Engineering Department had provided that all previous registered Contractors of Public Health Engineering Department be allowed to participate in tenders floated by District Government and their new registration was not required and it had also provided that new contractors could get themselves registered with District Government‑‑Authority, however, was authorized to determine financial position and experience of contractors‑‑‑If contractors were asked by Authority to submit relevant documents like enlistment/renewal letter, Engineering Council Certificate, details of Technical Administrative Staff and machinery, Bank Certificate and Performance Certificate, it had not violated any provision of law‑‑ Petitioner was free to compete tenders‑‑‑Authority, however, was directed by the High Court to act strictly in accordance with said letter issued by Punjab Public Health Engineering Department if the same had not been rescinded or modified. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in person.

Judgment & Decree

M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in person. The petitioner's Association of Public Health Contractors through its Secretary Javed Anwar Abid has knocked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of a direction to the respondents, allowing the petitioner to participate in the tenders invited through the advertisement for different projects under the Tehsil Local Government Administration and further directing them for not pre -qualifying the contractors and issuance of tender form without imposing any condition.

2. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were summoned in person and the Tehsil Municipal Officer had submitted that Tehsil Administration had invited from the approved contractors of Tehsil Municipal Administration Yazman who have got their names enlisted/renewed for the year 2002‑2003 on 19‑10‑2002 at 1‑00 p.m., in the office of Tehsil Officer, TMA Yazman, and further that for sound financial position of: the contractors they have been asked to submit certain documents and the contractor who are already enlisted in Public Healthy Department would be allowed to participate in the tender who got them enlisted with the Tehsil Administration or get renew their firms. He further submitted that the respondents are not going to pre‑qualifying the contractors.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards sub‑clause (v) of clause 4 of a letter issued by the Public Health Engineering Department dated 26‑2‑2002 which is 'reproduced as under:‑‑ "All the previously registered contractors of PHE Department be allowed to participate in tenders (pertaining to PHE works floated by District Government/TMAs and their hew registration is not required. The new contractors may get themselves registered with District Government/TMAs. The procedure for the enlistment of new contractors of various categories should be in line with C&W Department."

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.2 and 3, and gone through the record placed on the file of this Court. As submitted by the respondents that they are not going to pre‑qualify the contractors, it is not a pre‑condition to participate in the tender invited on 19‑10‑2002 for the completion of different projects in the Tehsil and no impediment/clog has been imposed on the contractors to participate in the tenders. However, the respondents are authorized to determine the financial position and experience of the contractors and if the contractors were asked by the respondents to submit the relevant documents like enlistment/renewal letter, Engineering Council Certificate, detail of Technical Administrative Staff and Machinery, Bank Certificate, Performance Certificate, they have not violated any provision of law. The petitioners are free to compete the tenders. However, the respondents are directed to act strictly in accordance with the letter issued by the Government of Punjab,' Public Health Engineering Department dated 26‑2‑2002, if the same has not been rescinded or modified.

5. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./P‑1567/L Order accordingly.