ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

Constt: Petition No.D-        3035   of 2015

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 

1-     For orders on CMA.No.8538/2015 (U/A)

2-     For orders on CMA.No.8539/2015 (Ex.A)

3-     For Katcha Peshi.

4-     For orders on CMA.No.8540/2015 (Stay)

 

 

26th. August, 2015.

 

 

                        Mr. Ferozuddin N.Shaikh, Advocate for petitioner

 

 

1                      Urgency application is allowed.

 

2                      Granted, subject to all just exception.

 

 

3& 4.              Through instant petition, petitioner alleges that respondents No.2 and 3 are not issuing tender form to the petitioner pursuant to a Notice for inviting tender dated 06.8.2015 available at page-17 Annexure “B”. Per learned Counsel, petitioner is a licensed Contractor and qualifies to obtain such tender form and to participate in the tender. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner for the proposed works as mentioned at Serial No.13, 14 and 15 of such Notice for inviting tenders petitioners prepared the three call deposits however, respondents did not accept the same. Per learned Counsel, inspite of repeated requests the respondents are not issuing tender form, whereas tomorrow is the last date for such purpose. It has been prayed that respondents may be directed to immediately supply tender form to the petitioner and they may be restrained from awarding tender to the man of their own choice.

 

                        We may observe that tendency to approach this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction directly without exhausting remedies available under   SPPRA Rules, 2010 at the fake end of the proceedings for obtaining some interim restraining order amounts to frustrate the normal process of public tenders, which causes delay in execution of such contracts and conclusion of the public works in time. Record shows that Notice inviting tenders is dated 06.8.2015 whereas, during such period the petitioner has not remained vigilant to pursue the remedy in accordance with law or to approach this court promptly. We don’t see any reason as to why such allegations may be entertained at this  fag stage of proceedings, particularly  when the petitioner has not placed anything  on record that the petitioner, before filing this petition has either availed the available remedy under SPPRA Rules, or made an effort to obtain the tender form within time. It cannot be expected from a public functionary to deprive any person who otherwise qualifies to participate in a public tender process, without any reasonable excuse. Learned Counsel for petitioner has not been able to show as to how and when he approached the respondents for the purpose of issuance of tender form as there is nothing in writing nor the petitioner appears to have lodged any complaint in this regard under SPPRA Rules, 2010. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant petition which is dismissed in limine along with listed application. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents for issuance of tender form, whereas, the respondents are directed to entertain the request of  petitioner and if  the petitioner qualifies, such tender form shall be issued to him whereas, if such request for issuance of tender forms as referred to hereinabove is declined, the respondents shall give reasons in writing for such refusal to the petitioner.  Let the petitioner may approach the respondents today or tomorrow for such purpose.

 

Petition stands disposed-off in above terms..

JUDGE

JUDGE

 

A.R.BROHI