MALIK MUSHTAQ GOODS TRANSPORT COMPANY versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY RAILWAYS, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD
Sections 1 (2) (3), 2 (J) and 26 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, R2 (C), 3, 4, 20, 34 (2), 40, 42 and 48 of the attached van van contract Failure to process the auction with railway trains running on auctioned routes and the return of call deposit to the bidders without the formal agreement signed by the Authority Validate Authority could not show any law, rule, rule and instructions under which. Pakistan Railways was not allowed to contract without inviting the Authority. The Authority did not take up a new process of inviting bids through proper publications. Will fall as a department. Under the definition of the procurement agency provided in section 2 (j) of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, the concept of competitive bidding open by Pak was conceived by the Stun Procurement Rules, 2004, with the view that it was through a procurement agency Ensure transparent exercise of powers in the delivery of the contract. The rules governing contract negotiations were specifically banned by the R40, 2004 The transparent use of powers by government officials in awarding contracts has always insisted that the bidding process was competitive. Emergency to be ignored as was contained in R 42 (v) of the Rules 2004 was not present in the existing contract No order of any competent authority to adopt the negotiation process for awarding the contract Didn't exist. Respondent's contract was not without legal authority, but was performed in a non-transparent manner, therefore, not retained in the eyes of the law.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
