1. ' The petitioner , who is doing business of Advertising and specially deals with the installation, maintenance and rental of Advertising Sign Boards and Billboards, has filed this petition against the Officers of L.D.A and Private Contractors. It has been asserted that L.D.A/Respondent through Daily Dawn Newspaper dated 30.04.2012, invited Public Tender for widening/improvement of main Hawksbay Road Karachi from 'Y' Junction to 5th Avenue, Contract No, MHR. 01, only for the 4 kilometers. Then on 22.05.2012, the Contract was awarded to the Friends Construction Syndicate Ltd/Respondents No, 7 and 8, by accepting their First Lowest Bid of Rs, 568,778,845.00, vide BId Evaluation Report dated 22.05.2012. The petitioner further contended that the said Road for which said Tender was awarded is of only 4 Km, at exhorbitant rate, as such, the Official Respondents have filled up their pockets by corrupt practice for illegal gain and ultimately prayed to pass an Order for Judicial Inquiry or Inquiry through NAB/FIA/Anti-Corruption against the Respondents in respect of the same and Declaration that the render awarded (sic) illegal and unlawful and blacklist the Respondents No, 7 and 8.
2. ' The Respondents/L.D.A, has filed the Counter Affidavit to the same and contended that the petition is not maintainable in law and facts as the same has been filed after three and a half month from the date of acceptance of the Work/Contract and the Contract has been awarded in terms of the Provisions of Rule 31 SPPRA Rules, 2010, framed under the Sindh Procurem ent Act, 2009, and the petitioner was not the participant in said Bid and awarding of Contract, rather this petition is motivated one for wrongful gain by the petitioner and have annexed certain documents in support of their contentions.
3. 'The Counter Affidavit was also filed on behalf of Respondents No, 7 and 8, contending thereby that the petitioner is a person of criminal mind and acting against them for wrongful gain and started demanding Bhatta/Gratification and on the refusal of Respondents No, 7 and 8, the petitioner filed false complaint s against them before the DIGP and tried to lodge the FIR against them through Courts, but that went in vain. The Respondents No, 7 and 8 have also filed C.P. No, D-6260/2015, in this Court, against the petitioner and other Police Officials in respect of harassment to the Respondents No, 7 and 8, and the said petition was disposed off on the assurance of the Police Officials that no harassment shall be caused to Respondents No, 7, vide Order dated 21 October , 2015, which documents have already been annexed in this petition along with Counter Affidavit of Respondents No, 7.
4. 'The Counsel for the petitioner while arguing his case mainly contended that widening/improvement of 4 Km. Road, has been awarded at the cost of Rs, 568,778,845.00, which is very excessive, exorbitant and fantastic, which shows the malpractice for illegal gain on the part of the Officials of LD.A/Respondents, but has not produced any document to show the length of Road of 4 K.m. from the Publication and relied on simply an Agenda of Meeting of PDWP dated 12.01.2012, wherein showed the cost of 1136.00 Million for widening/improvement of main Hawksbay Road Karachi.
5. ' Whereas, the Respondents contended that length of the Road is 8 Km and the widening of the Road is being Carried out on a Motorway type with dual carriageway , cost of work is not exhorbitant or fantastic, and the allegations of petitioner are false and mala fide.
6. 'As such, the Chief Engineer of L.D.A/Respondents was called to show the exact sphere of the said Work and today the Chief Engineer and Responden t No, 8, appeared in person and submitted sphere of work in respect of said Project in detail showing the cost of Approved PC-1, at 1136 Million, Width of Road 300 feet, Length of Road 8 Km, Carpet Width 112, Track Dual Carriage Way, Kerb Block 4 Lane in 8 Km Length, Central Median 30' Wide, Carpet Thickness 5 Inches, Service Road 12 feet 8 Km. in Length, Pipe Sleeves at 10 places, Pipe Culvert of 150 feet in 8 Km. Length, Foot Path 6' Wide on both sides, Storm Water Drain 8 Km in Length, Pavement Making + Traffic Sign 8 Km in length, Stone Pitchin g, 3 Cell R.C.C. Culvert, Construction of 24' Wide Service Road 8 Kin in Length, and Electrical Work Complete Solar Energy System with Galvanized Steel Pole all 8 Km in length, as the same is to be used for the Traffic of Heavy Trailers, Regular Trucks, MazdaT ans, Passenger Busses, Motorcycles, Vans/Cars 3162 Vehicles per day, which all proves that the widening/improvement of Dual Carriage Way like Motorway is being carried out and the Respondent No, 8, submits that the work is about to be completed and also submitted Photographs of the said W ork, which are kept on Record in the matter .
7. 'We have observed that the petitioner has relied on an Agenda for PDWP Meeting, where the cost of said widening/improvement of the Project is mentioned as 1136 Million, which cost has also been mentioned in the .sheet of Work Sphere and the Contract was awarded to the Respondents No, 7 & 8, to the tune of Rs, 568,778,845.00, for the widening and improvement of 8 Km Road, the details of which are already stated herein above, which shows that the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable in facts and law and even otherwise the contention of Respondents is that the petition is motivated one for wrongful gain and out of some business rivalry with Respondents No, 7 and 8. In other words the Contract awarded to the Respondents No, 7 and 8, whose Bid was the 1st lowest one, and below the estimated cost of 1 136 Million.
8. Moreover , the contract has been awarded by the Official Respondents after completing all the required formalities of the Bid to the Respondents No, 7 and 8, being lowest one, which was accepted and as contended that the Project is about to be completed and the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of more than three years and he was not the participant of the Tender Proceedings for awarding of the Contract of said work, as such, this petition apparently seems to be motivated one and nothing has specifically been shown as to the corrupt practice, rather mere words have been alleged without any substantial proof.
9. ' As such, in view of the above, we are of the view that the petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed along with listed Application. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.