- Power to accept or reject a bid/tender is vested with Project Director and not to write any report — Consultant cannot be challenged in writ. A.K. Trading Corporation v. Z.H. Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. 1997 SCR 336 (H)
- Tenders were invited from desirous persons — Ten conditions were laid down — Suddenly tender process was postponed — New dates were announced through corrigendum — The conditions which were published in the advertisement were not changed — However, a notification was issued that any person who shall submit his contract less than 10% of the engineering estimate his tender shall be rejected — Held: The High Court has not committed any mistake while holding that any condition laid down under this notification cannot be read against the respondent because the condition laid down under the said notification was not included in the conditions which were laid down for the project and published in newspaper. Public Works and Communication Department & 3 others v. Raja Muhammad Azad Khan and another 2005 SCR 236 (A)
- —Lowest bid—rejection of— Under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1984 it is provided that when a lowest bid is rejected then the authority has to record the reasons for rejection of the same. M/S Ideal Engineering v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1100 (A)
- —The right of competition is fundamental right—tendering process has not been completed in an open and transparent manner which is the requirement of law—- the respondents have been denied the right of competition which was their fundamental right. M/S Ideal Engineering v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1100 (B) PLD 1997 SC 342 rel.
- — Despite lowest bid—order for retendering passed by the Chief Engineer—for retendering—without assigning reason—Held: The order of the Chief Engineer appears to have been passed in the public interest and keeping in view the emergent nature of the project. M/S Ideal Engineering v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1100 (D)
- —Bid Instructions—Clause 3.4(c) & 11.2(d)—right of rejection and acceptance of bid—condition that in case of joint venture, security should be in name of joint venture—respondent firms not complied with condition—-bid of the respondents rightly rejected— it was essential that the bid security should be in the name of the joint venture and if the same is not as such, the principal or the employer has every right to reject the tender. The view taken by the learned High Court in this regard is against the record and the instructions. It may be stated that the bid of the respondent-firm was not finalized, rather it was at the stage of evaluation and until it is notified after the approval of the competent authority, no vested right could have been claimed. The principal in such circumstances has competently rejected the bid by holding the same as non-responsive and such a rejection cannot be challenged, specially so, when the principal has reserved his right to accept or reject any or all of the bids. Ministry of Kashmir Affairs & Gilgit Baltistan & another V. M/s ZK Associates (Pvt.) Limited & 4 others 2020 SCR 659 (D)PLJ 1983 SC 230 & PLD 1987 SC (AJK) 99 rel
error: Content is protected !!