GILGIT-BALTISTAN POLICY INSTITUTE (GBPI) vs GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GILGIT-BALTISTAN POLICY INSTITUTE (GBPI) VS GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN S.26---Public Procurement Rules, 2004, R.48---Writ petition¬---alternate remedy---Question of fact involved---Redressal of grievances by the procuring agency---Bids for destination management / development planning for untapped areas---Respondents/authorities had shortlisted the private respondent / private firm for all assignments---Petitioner contended that the qualification of the private respondent/firm in all three items of the project was in violation of the terms/conditions of the bidding documents as per the Request for Proposal; that official respondents had given undue favour to the private respondent/firm; that subject project should be declared null/void; and that respondents/authorities were required to reject all the bids of private respondent---Deputy advocate General being representative of official respondents contended that constitutional petition was pre-mature/not maintainable; that petitioner had failed to avail the alternate remedy under R.48 of the Procurement Rules; that respondent authority had permanent grievance committee; that petitioner participated in the bid process and remained unsuccessful for not having the technical and financial capacity to undertake the project; that considerable work of the project was complete and stopping the proceedings at such crucial stage would, cause public exchequer to suffer a loss of millions and private respondent/firm would also suffer financial loss and mental agony/torture; that matter involved disputed questions of facts which could not be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction; and that issue of fact whether petitioner had the required technical skills/know how could only be adjudicated by official respondents/authorities themselves---Held, that alternate remedy in shape of complaint was available to the aggrieved bidder and being dissatisfied with the decision of the committee might lodge an appeal in the relevant Court having jurisdiction---Petitioner's assertion and denial of respondents would lead to disputed question of facts which could not be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction---alleged complaint to Chairman Grievance Committee was a request to the said Chairman seeking permission for submission of additional proposal/extension of proposal submission deadline and that too was incomplete---Petitioner's prayer was infected with the discrepancy that he was seeking for disqualification of private respondent from all three assignments whereas on the same breath seeking the declaration in his favour regarding only one of three assignments---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

GILGIT-BALTISTAN POLICY INSTITUTE (GBPI) vs GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN S — 2022 MLD 1973 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD