MUHAMMAD AYUB AND BROTHERS versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
RR 30 and 31 LA Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court Appeal Bid, amendments to the parties participated in bidding for the contract in which the defendant was called by the appellant through call deposit / bank guarantee play. An insurance guarantee was allowed to be replaced. That such a change would allow the bidder to change or change the bid after the tender opens. Respondents' offer was initially invalidated but was illegally reinstated and the respondent was given the opportunity to amend his alternative insurance guarantee with a call deposit. , The day after the bids were opened, the purchasing agency could not allow a bidder to modify his bid so that others could gain unfair and unfair advantage over such a bid. There was a disagreement with the principles of authority. Such a strong face was made at a pre-bid meeting a few days ago, it clearly stated to the contracting contractors that there would be no insurance guarantee e-bidding was approved by the Capital Development Authority's advisor. Found that the rates of the respondents were unacceptable, which was largely ignored by the High Court Judge's decision passed by the High Court Judge and directed to the Division Bench of the High Court of Sustainable Development Authority. Infra-Court Appeal allowed, either to consider the Applicant's bid with the other Bidder who submitted the responsive bid or the alternative Capital Development Authority to have the freedom to re-bid the contract.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
