| Amendment in law during trial 2026 clc 357 |
⚖️ دورانِ مقدمہ قانون بدلنے پر عدالت کا اختیار ختم
📖 مختصر حقائق
⚖️ ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا
✨ اہم قانونی اصول
🌟 منفرد نکتہ
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 357
[Lahore]
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Messrs G.P. ENTERPRISES through Sole Proprietor ---Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab and others --Respondents
Writ Petition No. 69497 of 2024, decided on 30th January, 2025.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan-
---Art. 18-Constitutional guarantee of freedom of trade, business and profession---Scope-Right to freedom of trade, business or profession under Art.18 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but is subject to "qualifications" and restrictions prescribed by the law---Such restrictions have to be reasonable and the Courts are competent to review such restrictions on the touchstone of reasonability.
Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals v. Government of Punjab through Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others 2023 CLC 948 rel.
(b) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014-
Rr. 4, 8, 9 & 67-Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024, Regln.5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 18---Mis-procurement---Grouping of works---Splitting of tendered work---Petitioners assailed procurement process carried out by authorities-Validity.-In terms of Regin.5 of Punjab Procurement Regulations 2024 and R.8 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 annual development plan by each procuring agency with respect to procurement to be carried out in that fiscal year has to he devised within one month of the beginning of fiscal year and the same must be made public---Such procurement plan would rule out possibility of tinkering and/or manipulation in any tender at the time of inviting bids---There is an administrative and executive discretion vested in the procuring agency to formulate and design procurement plan by grouping and/or splitting the works for the purposes of ensuring widest possible competition and obviating the possibility of favouritism---Once such discretion is exercised, through an annual development plan, the procuring agencies are obligated to adhere to the same without splitting and/or regrouping the same in terms of R.9 of Punjab Procurement Rules 2014-Adherence to R.8 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 as to announcement of proposed annual procurement plan in a financial year is a legal obligation which stands as a bar and check upon procuring agency to arbitrarily split and/or regroup the subject matter of procurement to tailor make the same to extend favouritism-Procuring agency should at least, at the planning stage, consider splitting of the work when it is tendering the same that are comprised of different geographical locations and different types of services/activities and if it still decides to group them together in one contract then it should, minimum, state its reasons for doing so--This should be encouraged as a "best practice" amongst the procuring agencies to avoid any challenges during procurement process-High Court declined to interfere in procurement process, as the authorities had not committed any mis-procurement---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Kitchen Cuisine (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others PLID 2016 Lah. 412; Messrs Muhammad Hanif and Co. through Authorized representative and another v. Chief Engineer eer North, Pak PWD and 3 others 2023 CL CLC 443: Messrs Mohammad Ramzan and Company v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and 4 others. 2024 CL.C 1394; Adam Sugar Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and 2 others 2012 CLD 1734; In the Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc. 2012 SCMR 773 and Reliance Energy Limited and another v. Maharashtara State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and others (2007) 8 SCC 1 rel.
Malik Sultan Amir Awan for Petitioner.
Imran Khan and Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocates General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Iftikhar Ahmed Mian, Ghulam Hamza, DMO (E&M), MCL and Zulfiqar Ahmed, A.D. Legal, MCL for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7.
Syed Shahab Qutab: Amicus Curiae.