Summary: The petitioner, a local manufacturer, sought to have this clause declared unconstitutional. Tender Enquiry dealt with the responsibility for bearing increased duties and taxes in case of changes in the law. Specifically, it imposed the burden of such increases on local bidders, while foreign bidders were exempt from this obligation. The petitioner argued that this clause was discriminatory and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the court found that the clause was not discriminatory and did not create an unfair advantage for foreign bidders. In FOB (Free on Board) contracts, foreign suppliers had to bear any increased duties and taxes in their own country, and SNGPL was not responsible for these changes. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had previously participated in similar tenders by SNGPL without any objections to such clauses. Therefore, the petitioner's conduct was seen as contradictory, and the petition was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of clause 43.1 and ruled against the petitioner's challenge to its constitutionality.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a registered contractor with the respondent authority, was awarded a contract for providing and installing security equipment at Faisal Masjid, Islamabad, following a tender process. The petitioner claimed to have completed the project in accordance with the contract specifications, which was verified by the respondent's functionaries. Despite this, the respondent allegedly withheld payment for the completed work. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondent to release the payment, alleging discriminatory treatment intended to cause harm. -----Issues: 1- Whether the withholding of payment by the respondent constitutes a breach of contract actionable under constitutional jurisdiction. -----2- Whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy under contractual terms or civil law for the recovery of the claimed amount. -----3- Whether the precedents cited by the petitioner are applicable to the present case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdictional Limitations: The court held that the dispute involved factual and financial controversies stemming from a contractual relationship, which cannot be effectively adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction. Such matters are better resolved through alternate remedies, including invoking penal clauses within the contract or pursuing civil litigation. The court noted that the case laws cited by the petitioner were inapplicable due to distinct facts and circumstances. In the present case, there was no allegation of breach of contract by the respondent authority, which made the constitutional petition unsuitable. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s proper course of action would be to invoke the relevant penal clauses in the contract or to file a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of the claimed amount. The petition was dismissed in limine on the grounds of lack of merit and the availability of alternate remedies. -----Citations/Precedents The petitioner cited the following case laws: Zia Brothers v. Secretary of Purchase Committee [2007 CLC 1181] Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi, etc. [1998 SCMR 2268] Messrs Wak Orient Power & Light Limited through Chief Executive, Lahore [1998 CLC 1178]

Summary: Background: The case involves a civil revision challenging orders dated October 3, 2013, and January 13, 2014, by the Civil Judge and the District Judge (West) Islamabad, respectively. These orders vacated an ad-interim injunction granted to the petitioner and dismissed the subsequent appeal. The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded a tender for supplying explosive detectors for the Supreme Court Building. However, concerns were raised by the end-user regarding the functionality and specifications of the equipment supplied. Subsequent meetings led to a decision to seek alternative equipment, and the petitioner was held liable for recovery of a specified amount. The petitioner contested this through a suit seeking declaratory, permanent, and mandatory injunctions, along with an application for interim relief. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner supplied the equipment in accordance with the specifications provided in the Bill of Quantities (BoQ). -----2- Whether the interim relief granted initially should have been vacated. -----3- Whether the petitioner suffered irreparable loss due to the impugned orders. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition in limine on the following grounds: The petitioner failed to substantiate that the equipment was supplied in line with the specified requirements. The record suggested that upgradation of the equipment could have met the required standards. The supplied equipment was not the only make and model specified in the BoQ; alternatives were also permissible to fulfill the purpose of detecting various types of explosives. The brochure accompanying the supplied equipment specified its capabilities, which required further inquiry through evidence. The warranty period had not expired, and the impugned letter's scope was limited to the specified amount, indicating no irreparable loss to the petitioner.

Summary: (a) Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules,2003-------Rr. 3, 27-A & Second Sched., Part-III, Item No. 2---West Pakistan MunicipalCommittees (Cattle Market) Rules, 1969, R. 6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Auction of lease of collection of fee of Cattle Market---Order ofauthority directing petitioner to hand over charge of such market on expiry of one year---Plea of petitioner (highest bidder) was that such lease was given for three years asapproved by Tehsil Nazim, Town Municipal Council and Provincial Government---Validity---Period of such lease as advertised and mentioned in contract document wasone year---Petitioner had knowingly participated in auction proceedings that period ofsuch collection rights was one year and not three years---Such auction was held underPunjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 and not underWest Pakistan Municipal Committee (Cattle Market) Rules, 1969---Record showed thatsuch lease had been approved by the Town Municipal Council for a period of one year---Under R. 3 of West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Cattle Market) Rules, 2003, suchlease could not be awarded beyond period of one year---Under R. 27-A of said Rules noextension in such contract could be granted beyond period of one year---Lease would beillegal and void, if executed for a period of three years in violation of law/rules---LocalGovernment itself had no authority to extend such contract beyond period of one year, thus, Provincial Government had no power to approve its extension for three years---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.Writ Petition No.24544 of 2009 ref.Mumtaz Ali Khan Rajban and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001SC 169 and Tanveer Hussein v. Divisional Superintendent, Pak Railways PLD 2006 SC249 rel.Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Town Municipal Administration, Lahore through Town MunicipalOfficer and 2 others PLD 2009 Lah. 657 distinguished.(b) Administration of Justice-------Anything required to be done in a particular manner must be done in such mannerand not otherwise.(c) Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules,2003-------Rr. 3, 27-A & Second Sched., Part-III, Item No. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Contract for collection of fee of Cattle Market,cancellation of---Contractor's plea that he shifted market to another village due toreason that area acquired by Town Municipal Administration was not enough forholding such market---Validity---Contractor had no lawful authority to take on lease anyother land for holding of a cattle market and shift market from place acquired byauthority to such other place---High Court dismissed constitutional petition incircumstances.(d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)-------S. 23---West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.22---Publication of newRules under a statute---Effect---Previous Rules would be deemed to be expresslyrepealed, if same were obviously and vividly inconsistent with such new Rules.(e) Interpretation of statutes-------Special Law would prevail over general law.Neimat Ali Goraya and 7 others v. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/ Sargent Traffic through S.P.,Traffic, Lahore and others 1996 SCMR 826 and Dur Muhammad v. Abdul Sattar PLD2003 SC 828 ref.(f) Estoppel-------No estoppel against law/statute.(g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.11---Res judicata, applicability of---Scope---Decision on a question of law withoutproper adjudication would not operate as res judicata.Muhammad Saleemullah and others v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala andothers PLD 2005 SC 511 and Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Iqbal Khan and 7 others1985 CLC 1280 rel.

Summary: (a) Contract and Administrative Law (AJK) ----Tender contracts—Blacklisting and appeal—Scope of judicial review—Petitioner-company challenged appellate committee’s order upholding its blacklisting—Held, blacklisting is a serious civil consequence requiring adherence to principles of natural justice—Authorities must provide prior notice, disclose material relied upon, and afford a fair hearing before imposing or maintaining such penalty—Any deviation renders the order coram non judice and violative of due process. (b) Administrative discretion—Judicial control ----Colourable exercise of power—Doctrine of fairness—Court reaffirmed that executive discretion in contractual and tender matters must be exercised transparently, reasonably, and for bona fide purpose—Exercise tainted with mala fides, bias, or disregard of procedural fairness is amenable to correction through constitutional writ—Even where contractual relationship exists, arbitrary administrative exclusion from future tenders attracts constitutional protection. (c) Constitution of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, 1974 ----Art. 44—Writ jurisdiction—Maintainability—Existence of alternate remedy not an absolute bar where the impugned order is patently without lawful authority or violative of fundamental procedural safeguards—High Court competent to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to ensure fairness and legality in administrative action. (d) Remedies—Appellate mechanism under tender regulations ----Appellate Committee’s jurisdiction—Scope limited to re-examination of material on record and adherence to prescribed procedure—Where the appellate authority merely affirms departmental action without independent evaluation or speaking reasons, such order fails the test of lawful exercise of quasi-judicial power and is liable to be set aside. Held, impugned order upholding blacklisting of the petitioner firm suffered from procedural impropriety and lack of reasoned determination—Set aside accordingly; respondents directed to reconsider the matter afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Cited Principles: Doctrine of natural justice; administrative fairness; proportionality; judicial review of discretion. Disposition: Petition accepted; impugned blacklisting order quashed; matter remanded to competent authority for re-determination after hearing the petitioner.

Summary: (a) Public Procurement—Maintainability of Constitutional Petitions ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 9, 18 & 25---Judicial review of public procurement decisions---Maintainability---Petitioners challenged procurement tenders issued by the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore (MCL), alleging that the grouping of works in a manner that exceeded their bidding capacity under PEC Category ‘C-6’ was discriminatory and constituted mis-procurement---Respondents contended that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) under Rule 67 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 ("Rules 2014")---Held, that where a procurement decision is challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness, favoritism, or discriminatory treatment, constitutional courts have jurisdiction to review such decisions to ensure transparency and competition in the procurement process---While government entities have discretion in structuring tenders, judicial interference is warranted where procurement rules are violated or where competitive neutrality is compromised---Fundamental right to a level playing field under public procurement law is protected under Articles 9, 18, and 25 of the Constitution---Constitutional petitions were maintainable. Cited Cases: Messrs Mohammad Ramzan & Company v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 CLC 1394) Kitchen Cuisine (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 2016 Lahore 412) In the Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants (2012 SCMR 773) Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2007 8 SCC 1, India) (b) Public Procurement—Principles of Openness, Transparency, and Competition ----Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, R. 4, R. 9, R. 34---Grouping of works in public procurement---Fair competition and transparency---Held, that under Rule 4, a procuring agency must ensure that procurement is conducted fairly, transparently, and in a manner that promotes competition---Rule 9 prohibits arbitrary splitting or regrouping of procurements after the procurement plan for the financial year has been announced---Rule 34 prevents the introduction of discriminatory conditions that limit participation by eligible bidders---Held, that there was no evidence that the grouping of works in the impugned tenders was tailored to favor any specific contractor or restrict competition---Tenders were structured as part of an approved government initiative to improve civic infrastructure, and multiple contractor categories were eligible to participate---Thus, the tenders did not violate procurement laws or transparency requirements. (c) Freedom of Trade and Business—Right to Participate in Public Procurement ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 18 & 25---Government contracts---Freedom of trade, business, and profession---Limitations under law---Petitioners contended that the grouping of works in the impugned tenders unfairly restricted their right to participate, thereby violating Article 18 of the Constitution---Held, that the right to carry on trade or business is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions prescribed by law---Procurement laws permit the structuring of tenders to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness, provided such structuring is not arbitrary or discriminatory---In the absence of evidence that similarly placed contractors were treated differently, no violation of Article 18 or Article 25 was established. Cited Case: Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals v. Government of Punjab (2023 CLC 948) (d) Public Procurement—Splitting of Works and International Best Practices ----Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, R. 9---Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024, Reg. 6(3)---Contract splitting and procurement planning---International best practices---Held, that while there is no explicit requirement under local procurement laws mandating the splitting of contracts for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Regulation 6(3) of the Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024, allows a procuring agency to create "LOTS" or decide whether procurement should be made as a whole or item-wise---Global procurement standards, including the European Union Procurement Directive, 2014 (Art. 46), and the UK Procurement Act, 2023 (Sec. 18), emphasize a “divide or explain” principle, requiring contracting authorities to consider splitting works to promote competition while balancing operational efficiency---Court observed that while MCL had not violated local laws, procuring agencies should adopt international best practices and document their rationale when opting for bundled tenders. Cited International Sources: Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement (EU) UK Procurement Act, 2023 (Sec. 18—Duty to Consider Lots) Contract Splitting in Public Procurement—OECD & EU Joint Report (2016) (e) Directions for Future Public Procurement ----Procurement oversight and transparency---Court issued directions to all procuring agencies in Punjab to enhance transparency and accountability in public procurement, including: (i) Mandatory Public Procurement Plans: Agencies must publish annual procurement plans within one month of the fiscal year’s commencement, as required under Regulation 5 of the Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024. (ii) Compliance with Planned Procurements: Once an annual procurement plan is announced, agencies must adhere to it without arbitrary splitting or regrouping, in line with Rule 9 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014. (iii) Prevention of Tailored Bids: Agencies must ensure that procurement structuring does not unfairly favor specific contractors or limit competition. (iv) Consideration of Work Splitting: While procurement agencies have discretion, they should document reasons for grouping or splitting works to ensure competitive fairness. Disposition: Writ Petition No. 69497/2024 and connected Writ Petition No. 76292/2024 dismissed. Directions issued for improving transparency in public procurement.

Summary: In this legal document, the court addresses a case involving a dispute over the awarding of a contract for the Sindh Barrages Improvement Project. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the contract was awarded to defendant No.6 without them having a joint venture partner, despite their involvement in similar joint venture projects in the past. The court noted that the defendant No.6 had submitted details of their past contracts and experience, including being a lead partner in joint ventures.The court also mentioned that 17 participants submitted applications for prequalification, and the World Bank reviewed the process, finding no objections. The defendant No.6 submitted the lowest bid, leading to the contract award. The plaintiff had an opportunity to raise objections but failed to do so. The plaintiff later filed a complaint with the World Bank, alleging misprocurement and corrupt practices.The court reviewed emails from the World Bank, which indicated that they had no objection to awarding the contract to defendant No.6, subject to certain clarifications. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claims of misprocurement and corruption.The court emphasized that the procurement process was conducted in accordance with established guidelines, and the defendant No.6's bid was found to be the lowest. The plaintiff's claim that they should have been awarded the contract despite their higher bid was deemed unwarranted.The court also cited various legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury when granting injunctions. Ultimately, the court dismissed both applications and upheld the award of the contract to defendant No.6. The decision was dated September 15, 2017, in Karachi.