KAC-RMS (JOINT VENTURE) vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Rr — 2024 PLD 213 ISLAMABAD

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

KAC-RMS (JOINT VENTURE) VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Rr. 33 & 48---Bidding process---Redressal of grievance---Vested right---Scope---Grievance redressal mechanism provided under R. 48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, is meant to ensure that principles of procurement as enshrined in Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and procedures prescribed therein are abided by procuring agency while procuring goods and services---No bidder has vested right to seek issuance of procurement contract, even where its bid is found to be the most advantageous bid---Bidder cannot be deemed to be aggrieved by the act of procuring agency to annul procurement process in exercise of its power under R. 33 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004---Provision of R. 33(2) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, provides that procuring agency can incur no liability towards bidders who have submitted their bids, if it elects to reject all bids and annul the procurement process---Bidder may be aggrieved where its bid has been rejected and bid of another competitor has been accepted---Where all bids have been rejected, the bidder, whose bid may be deemed to be a most advantageous bid, cannot claim to have a justiciable legal grievance, redressal of which can be sought under R. 48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004---Where there is a right, there is a remedy---Party making the best bid in a tender process has no right to be granted a contract and consequently, it cannot seek a legal remedy forcing procuring agency to accept its bid and enter into a contract---In commercial and contractual matters constitutional Courts do not exercise searching scrutiny when invited to undertake judicial review of decisions rendered by public authorities---Constitutional Courts exercise their judicial review powers to ensure that the State does not dispense its largesse in an illegal, arbitrary or whimsical fashion---Where State and its instrumentalities choose not to dispense any largesse and elect not to enter into a contract to procure goods and services, the Court is loath to force a procuring agency exercising authority on behalf of the State to enter into a contractual relationship for procurement of such goods and services---This is moreso in view of R. 34 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, where in aftermath of annulment of procurement process, a procuring agency can initiate a procurement process afresh, which then provides an equal opportunity to all interested parties to enter into bidding contest and decision to annul previous procurement process can therefore not be seen as serving the interest of any particular bidder.

KAC-RMS (JOINT VENTURE) vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Rr — 2024 PLD 213 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD