C.P.No.D-1627 of 2015

1. For orders on CMA-8653/2015

2. For orders on CMA-4788/2015

3. For Katcha Peshi

01.09.2015

Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Shaikh Advocate for petitioner.

...............

Through instant petition, the petitioner has expressed grievance by alleging that pursuant to advertisements dated 19.01.2015 and 04.03.2015 he approached the respondents for issuance of tender form, however, according to learned counsel, such tender form was not issued, whereafter, the petitioner filed a C.P. No.D-1231/2015 seeking direction of this Court for issuance of such tender form. Per learned counsel, the respondents did not issue the tender form in spite of the fact that the petitioner prepared the cheques in respect of amount of Call Deposit. Learned counsel further submits that tenders have been issued to and contract has been awarded on political basis. Per learned counsel, the petitioner wants that an enquiry into the entire award process may be conducted. According to learned counsel, certain irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the respondents while awarding contracts.

Learned counsel was enquired as to the fate of the above petition filed by the petitioner before this Court for obtaining tender form, however, he could not assist the Court as to what was the result of the above petition. Learned counsel was further enquired as to whether petitioner before approaching this Court, has approached the relevant authorities for the purpose of lodging his complaint for non-issuance of tender form and pointed out any irregularity or illegality allegedly committed by the respondents in terms of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, however, in response to such query, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not approached the relevant authorities for such purpose and has directly approached this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 for redressal of his grievance.

It appears that the petitioner has not been vigilant to approach relevant authority for availing alternate remedy, whereas, nothing has been placed on record as to how and what illegality or violation of SPPRA Rules, 2010 has been committed by respondents while granting above contract. We are not inclined to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner, merely on the basis of vague and generalized allegations in the absence of any material in support. Accordingly we do not find any substance in the petition, which is dismissed in limine along with the listed applications.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.