1. ' Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24-3-2008, issued by the respondent No,3 seeking declaration that the petitioner is a competent contractor to bid in the tenders and the respondents be directed to issue tender documents to the petitioner for participating in the bids.
2. ' The petition emanates under the facts and circumstances that the petitioner is a Government contractor registered with Pakistan Engineering Council, remained engaged with the bidding of Government contracts for public works falling within the jurisdiction of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board under Tameer-e-Karachi Programme under valid licence for rapid and extensive development of Karachi city and the surrounding area. The petitioner has applied for issuance of tender documents for:--
(i) M.S. Rising Main 66 Inch (BN1676 MM) to Hub Pumping Station and Hub Water Treatment Works.
(ii) M.S. Water Supply Pipeline North Karachi Filter Plan (NEK) to Neelam Hill Taiser Town M.D.A. And construction of 10 million gallon capacity pump house and 2.5 million gallon capacity sump well.
(iii) construction of 50,000 Gallon Reservoir Orangi Town Pumping House and 48 Inch Main 16 Inch Messrs Pipe Line Northern bye-pass to Orangi, Town Altaf Nagar, Gulshan-e-Zia 12 inch Messrs Pipe Line Water Supply Improvement.
(iv) P/L Sewerage System, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, C.D.G.K. On fund year 2007-2008 Sheet No,1 to 22 Model Colony UC-1, Malir Town Sewerage System.
(v) Rehabilitation of Hub Canal vide Daily Jang Newspaper dated 7-3-2008.
3. ' The above tenders were floated by the respondent No,3 through advertisement published in approved daily newspapers circulating at Karachi, the petitioner submitted application to the respondent No,3 for issuance of the tender documents, which were received and returned on the ground simplicitor that the petitioner's `application for issuance of tender documents could not be acceded. The letter of the respondent No,3 dated 24-3-2008, is based upon mala fides and of no legal effect.
4. ' That on behalf of the respondent No,3, in parawise comments, it has been contended that the request of the petitioner was not acceded as he was not registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council in the category required for the projects at Item Nos.1 to 3, while not pursuing the matter in respect of Item' No,4. Item No,5 will complainant up afresh. The project of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board for prompting the projects of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and those who are not specialized fall in financial category could not be allowed to bid for the project and on account of non-fulfilment of requirements they were not delivered tender documents.
5. ' The petitioner filed objections to the parawise comments filed by the respondent No,3, denied the various allegations more particularly about the specialization provided in the newspaper inviting the tenders states that the petitioners were qualified, on account of the joint venture with the reputable contractor Haji Muhammad Haleem Mandokhel having pecuniary limit of Rs,300,00 million sufficient to meet the required limit of the subject tender, in consonance with rule 4(10) of Pakistan Engineering Council Work Bye-Laws. In contravention to the above tender documents were issued to Shaikh Baz Khan and others, Ayoob and Brother and Messrs Ayaz Builders for participation in the tenders though their specialization does not fall within the ambit of required participation in the subject tender under specialized Code CE-09 regarding Sewerage Works and Water Supplier, ' Ms. Rukhsana Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on account of joint venture, the specialized category and financial assistance availed to the petitioner were much more than the tender document delivered to other contractors, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be treated at par to other contractors and non-specialization is not applicable to the petitioner's case. It is, next urged that the petitioner applied for tender documents by enclosing relevant documents and pay order for Rs,25,000, which was returned with mala fide object and the respondent 'has refused to issue tender documents, which were opened on 21-3-2008, thus the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate rights. It is, next urged that the projects of the respondent No,1 wherein tenders were invited through joint venture, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
6. ' Mr. Khalid Javed Khan and Mr. Qazi Majid Ali, learned counsel for the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner did not possess the financial category for the project.
7. Therefore, they were not entitled to participate in the bid.
8. ' We have considered the arguments advanced at bar, perused the Rules of Pakistan Engineering Council and the Code as well as a field of specialization provided in the respective licences of the parties. It may be pointed out that licences submitted by the parties contain two categories (1) the financial category and (2) the field of specialization. In order to be qualified the contractor must fall under the financial Code/Category as well as field of specialization. As far as Financial Category is concerned, the petitioner falls under category C-3 upto Rs,100.00 million whereas in terms of field of specialization he falls under categories CE-09 and 10. Category CE-09 relates to sewerage works and water supply (the corresponding entry for licenses for the year 2007 were CE-19 and CE-20). As against this the licence of petitioner's partner in joint venture namely Haji Muhammad Haleem Mandokhel indicates that his financial limit was Rs,300.00 million, while the category was CE-06, 21, BC-04. In other words the partners did not have the field of specialization, as required. As against this the other contractors, who were issued tender documents fall within the financial categories of Rs,1000.00 million or no limit and also possess the field of specialization for sewerage works and water supplies. From the foregoing, it is established from the record that the petitioner and his joint venture partners were both individually disqualified under the PEC Regulation i.e, the petitioner, being disqualified on the ground of lacking financial limit, while his partner lacking the field of specialization. A Therefore, two disqualified persons even in cases of joint venture tenders would not be , qualified by joining hands. Each contractor must be qualified in his own right before forming a partnership to tender for a joint venture project.
9. ' Having examined the individual licenses as well as the qualifications of the petitioner as well as other contractors we shall now proceed to deal with the projects individually.
10. ' That for the project M.S. Rising Main 66 Inch the respondent pointed out that the petitioner did not possess the financial category (having licence in Category C-3 i.e, for project of less than Rs,100.00 million) and would, therefore, be disqualified. As per the advertisement this was not a joint venture project. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to be issued tender documents.
11. ' Regarding Item No,2 i.e, M.S. Water Supply Pipeline North Karachi Filter Plan (NEK) to Neelam Hill Taiser Town MDA and construction of pump house, which was floated vide tender notice dated 6- 3-2008. The petitioner having licence in category-3 i.e, for work less than Rs,100.00 million was disqualified for the project. As to his partner for joint venture it has been pointed out by the respondents that this again was not a joint venture project, therefore, the petitioner could not join hands with the third party for his project. Even otherwise the joint venture partner namely Haji Muhammad Haleem Mandokhel did not possess the requisite field of specialization and was, therefore, otherwise disqualified.
12. ' As far as the construction of 50,000 Gallon Reservoir Orangi Town Pumping House and 48 Inch Main 16 Inch Messrs Pipe Line Northern bye-pass to Orangi Town Altaf Nagar, Gulshan-e-Zia 12 Inch Messrs Pipe Line Water Supply Improvement is concerned, the advertisement was published for inviting tenders on 12-3-2008. The notice inviting tender invited individuals as well as joint venture for this project. The cost of tender fee was Rs,10,000, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs,25,000 (Annexure RJ-10 of the parawise comments of the respondent No,3). The petitioner applied for tender documents on 22-3-2008 and after dropping the application the petitioner did not attend the office of the respondent No,1 till 24-3-2008. The respondent No,1 vide dated 25-3- 2008 informed the petitioner that the request for issuance of tender documents was considered, but rejected as the estimated cost of tender is higher than the category in which the petitioner was registered with PEC. As per the respondent the letter was sent through courier and later on petitioner's representative personally received the copy of letter along with pay order of Rs,10,000.
13. Thus the petitioner had withdrawn its offer and it was also not qualified for the project.
14. ' Regarding the Item No,4 i.e, P/L Sewerage System, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, C.D.G.K. On fund year 2007-08 Sheet Nos.1 to 22 Model Colony UC-1, Malir Town Sewerage System, the invitation for tender was published on 22-2-2008 and opening date was fixed on 19-3-2008, while the petitioner submitted his application on 18-3-2008 in the evening at 5-00 p.m., hence no tender could be issued to him, which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner himself was not interested in the above tender, hence he cannot shift his burden upon the respondents.
15. ' As to project No,5, the respondents had pointed out that there was no participants in the bidding for this project held on 7-4-2008. As there were no bidders for this project, fresh notice of invitation was published in the newspapers.
16. ' That in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is established that the petitioner, being disqualified, was not entitled to be issued tender documents or did not pursue the matter as is evident in B respect of Item No,4. He was himself at fault, but by filing this petition he has delayed the above projects, which should be completed as early as possible. The petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.
17. ' It is further directed to the respondents that, in future, they have to be careful in publishing the advertisement of tender and have to mention the PEC Category/field of specialization and approximate cost of the project.