MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- This revision petition is directed against the judgments and decree passed by learned both the Courts below dated 22.5.2012 and 13.6.2012, whereby the suit filed by the present petitioner for mandatory injunction was dismissed having no cause of action.
Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, hence this revision petition.
2. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents without issuing any proclamation in the newspaper for sale of old material of the building, awarded the contract to respondent No. 2 against the spirit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.6.2012, respondent No. 1 alongwith XEN Building attended the Court proceedings and explained the position that the tenders were invited for the re-construction of the building through publication in the newspaper and dismantling of building and sale of old material was also given to the same contractor who succeeded in obtaining the contract of re-construction of building as per decision of the Committee. Therefore, no illegality has been committed and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge this act of the respondents.
3. On Court query, the XEN admitted that no separate tenders were invited for the dismantling of the building as well as the sale of the old building material which is still available at the spot.
4. Since the respondents have violated the established principle of law, which enunciates that the entire process allowing any contract to any person must be fair and transparent and this can only be possible if it is made open to all participants by inviting the public-at-large. But in this case, no tenders or bids have been invited through publication in the newspaper. Therefore, the act of the respondents for award of contract to a man of their own choice is not tenable in the eye of law inasmuch as the tenders of re-construction of the building alone have published in the newspaper but dismantling of the building and sale of the material at the spot have not been invited through publication and work order was issued for dismantling of building and selling of material to the same contractor as well whereas his (contractor's) tender for reconstruction of building alone was approved. This state of affairs renders the tender dubious in nature, and prima facie, seems to be an act of favouritism and nepotism. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the act of respondent No. 1 for award of contract for selling of the old building material being illegal, unlawful and without any justification, is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure total transparency in award of contract by re-inviting fresh tenders/bids through publication in the widely circulated newspapers in accordance with law.
5. With this direction, this petition stands accepted. Consequently, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are set aside.
Civil revision .