1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-In July 1972, the Karachi Municipal Corporation invited tenders from the approved con--tractors for the balance work of main Slaughter House, Cold Storage, Wardrobe, rectification work and Cork Insulation etc., at the estimated cost of Rs.3,58,032. Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner participated in this tender. The tender of the respon--dent No. 4 was the lowest and it was after due scrutiny and verification recommended by the Karachi Municipal Corporation to the Controlling Authority for approval as required by the West Pakptan Municipal Committees (Contracts) Rules, 1960. The recommendation was based on the resolution of the Karachi Municipal Corporation No. 395 dated the 2nd December 1972. It appears that the Controlling Authority instead of accepting the tender of respondent No. 4, considered the tender of the petitioner and approved it. Accordingly, the Administrator of Karachi Municipal Corporation gave the above work for performance to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 challenged this decision in Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 1973, and a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by judgment dated the 9th February 1973, allowed the petition and set aside the direction of the Controlling Authority as contained in Annexure 'D' to the petition to the extent that it approved the tender of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. Mr. Khalid M. Lshaque, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged two points. Firstly, he contended that respondent No. 4 was not competent to file the petition because he was a `B' class contractor and was entitled to give tender for work up to the value of Rs.5,00,000. He further contended that the Con--trolling Authority was competent to approve the tender of the petitioner and to give the work to him. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. Admittedly, the value of the tender was Rs.3,58,032 and respondent No. 4 being a 'B' class contractor was entitled to participate in it. It is not disputed that the Controlling Authority has not rejected the tender of respondent No. 4 on this ground. In any case, we do not attach much importance to this circumstance. Respondent No. 4 was aggrieved party and, therefore, he was entitled to move the High Court to file the writ petition against the order of the Controlling Authority.
3. The most important point in this case is whether the Controlling Authority could by-pass the Municipal Corporation an approve the tender of the petitioner on its own when it was no recommended by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. We have gone through the relevant Rules and are satisfied that the Con--trolling Authority was not competent to do so. The views of the High Court on this point are unassailable and we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.