1993 CLC 1132 (PLP)

Rana Muhammad Arshad, Add1.A.‑G. for Respondent No.1. M.M. Afzal for Respondent No 22. . Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1992., ORDER. The dispute in this case relates to award of contract for the construction of soling on the Bank of Sem Nala, village Narooki District Gujranwala, which stands awarded to respondent No.2 on 14-11-1992. 2 Respondent No.1,had invited tenders for the construction of this work through Public Notice published in the Daily ."Pakistan". of second . November) 1992. According to the case of the petitioner, he approached respondent No.1 for supplying of tender documents but respondent No. l refused to supply these documents to the petitioner without any lawful justification.

3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared alongwith the record. He admits that the petitioner was not supplied the tender documents. The reason disclosed for not doing so is that the petitioner did not possess the Call Deposit Receipt. ,

4. It has, however; been pointed bat to the learned Additional Advocate General that according to the terms of the Public Notice published in the Daily "Pakistan", the prospective tenderer is not obliged to present a Call Deposit Receipt at the time of obtaining tender ‑documents but the requirement in this behalf is that the receipt must be attached to the tender by the contractor when he submits the same to respondent No.1.

5. The learned Additional Advocate‑General is not to a position to dispute this position. He has, however, stated that this practice is prevalent with all the departments of the Government. Such a practice which is contrary to the terms of the tender itself, has obviously no foundation and cannot be approved. Thus the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been supplied the tender documents appears to be justified.

6. The next question, which arises, is as to whether this Court, in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, can interfere at this stage. It is stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2. and has not been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the work in question is already in progress and according to respondent No.2, the one‑half of it has already been completed. It thus appears that no useful purpose will be served by nullifying the contract awarded by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 at this stage, especially when the work for public benefit, which is being carried by respondent No.2, is liable to suffer. I have asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to at what amount the petitioner is willing to obtain the contract for the construction of work. In reply, petitioner's counsel has stated that the petitioner is willing to reduce the contracted price by about Rs3tl per item, which in the circumstances of the case, is wholly insubstantial,

7. It is also to be noticed that the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not supplied the tender documents on 11‑11‑1992, but he waited till 17‑11‑1992 before filing this petition by which time the contract already stood awarded to respondent No.2. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have approached this Court before the award of contract to respondentNo.2. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference in the matter is called for. This petition is dismissed in limine. AA./K‑68/L Petition dismissed.