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: Writ Petition No. 4872/2014 was filed in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by Khalid & Brothers against the Punjab Province and others. The petitioners sought the issuance of a tender document for certain works and requested that the impugned letters, dated 15.02.2014, be declared illegal and against the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules. They also sought to be allowed to participate in the tenders, subject to the outcome of the writ petition on its merits.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners submitted their applications for pre-qualification in response to a notice issued by respondent No. 3. However, only seven companies were pre-qualified, and the petitioners were not mentioned in the pre-qualification letter. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents malafidely did not pre-qualify the petitioners, who were approved contractors and registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council. They contended that the respondents did not provide reasons for not pre-qualifying them, as required under the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 (PPR).On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the prequalification process was carried out properly and in accordance with the PPR. The respondents followed the required criteria and promptly informed the contractors who were not pre-qualified.The court found that the respondents had properly followed the prequalification process under the PPR and had promptly informed the petitioners of their non-prequalification. It was noted that the petitioners did not request reasons for their non-prequalification, as required by the rules.The court held that it lacked the expertise to review technical expertise or managerial capabilities of contractors, and unless acts by the respondents were arbitrary or against the law, it would refrain from interference. The court found no illegality or malafide on the part of the respondents and dismissed the petition.

Summary: Appointment of Ayyaz Khan Niazi: The court's decision on Ayyaz Khan Niazi's appointment as Chairman of NICL was based on a violation of Section 12 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The court cited the principles of transparency and legality, akin to the reasoning in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (AIR 1998 SC 889), which emphasized adherence to statutory requirements in public appointments.Misuse of Authority and Corruption: The court applied Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, focusing on misuse of authority for personal gains. This mirrors the principles established in Muhammad Ali v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 667), where misuse of public office for personal benefit was scrutinized.Failure in Law Enforcement and Investigation: The court's criticism of the FIA's ineffective investigation drew from Bank of Punjab v. Haris Steel (PLD 2010 SC 1109), emphasizing the independent and diligent role of law enforcement in corruption cases.Contempt of Court Proceedings: The proceedings against officials like Qamar Zaman Chaudhry were influenced by Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 292), underlining the judiciary's role in ensuring compliance with its orders.Implications for Governance and Rule of LawStrengthening Accountability Mechanisms: The case underscored the necessity of robust accountability mechanisms, inspired by the principles laid down in Ashfaq Baig v. The State (PLD 2004 Karachi 353), which focused on the need for effective institutional frameworks.Enhancing Transparency in Public Appointments: The appointment irregularities reflected the need for transparent processes, akin to the guidance provided in Muhammad Farooq Maan v. Director-General, Anti-Corruption (2010 PCr.LJ 997).Upholding Judicial Independence: The contempt proceedings were in line with the principles from Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. C. Shukla (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1406), emphasizing the respect for judicial orders.Challenges in Combatting Corruption: The complexities in investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption, as highlighted in this case, draw parallels with Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1388), emphasizing the challenges in dealing with corruption involving high-ranking officials.

Summary: The petitioner argued that respondent No.1 should have auctioned the contract openly and that the extension was granted to respondent No.2 without following legal procedures, possibly for ulterior motives. The petitioner also mentioned approaching the Anti-Corruption Establishment regarding the matter. After hearing the arguments, the court found that the extension of the contract to respondent No.2 without an open auction was illegal and against the principles of fairness and transparency. It cited a Supreme Court case supporting the importance of transparent auction proceedings for public contracts. The court declared the extension and subsequent contract between respondent No.1 and No.2 as null and void and directed the petitioner to deposit a certain amount within a week. If no one bids higher than the petitioner's deposited amount in the re-auction, respondent No.1 shall award the contract to the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the re-auction will proceed, and respondent No.2 may secure the contract if no one bids higher than the previously deposited amount.

Summary: The case revolves around the award of a Contract dated 29.12.2009 for the Islamabad Safe City Project. The project involved the procurement of goods, equipment, and services for establishing a Command Center and Network in Islamabad for a total cost of US$ 124,719,018.The factual background reveals that a Chinese company, M/s Huawei Technology Company Limited, approached the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) with an offer to implement a comprehensive surveillance and monitoring system for security, specifically in Islamabad. The project faced complexities, including discussions on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and considerations for a long-term concessional loan from the Chinese government.The case details the series of events, meetings, and decisions involving various government stakeholders, leading to the approval of the project by the Prime Minister on December 24, 2009. The judgment outlines the concerns and considerations related to the project, including financial aspects, procurement procedures, and the involvement of different ministries.--- Judiciary's role in scrutinizing government transactions involving public funds --- property, and contracts to ensure transparency, legality, and fairness. The text then delves into a specific case related to the procurement of goods and services by the Ministry of Interior, where the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules are invoked. The court declares the contract executed on December 29, 2009, as illegal and invalid, citing violations of procurement rules and lack of transparency. The judgment directs the government to reinitiate the procurement process in adherence to the law, allowing the involved company to participate. Additionally, the National Accountability Bureau is urged to initiate appropriate proceedings in line with the judgment --- Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002" and the "Public Procurement Rules, 2004." --- Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and Another (PLD 1988 SC 416):This case is cited to support the idea that the jurisdiction of the court is not limited to adversarial proceedings initiated by a wronged litigant. It establishes that the court can address the enforcement of constitutional rights for groups or the public at large.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and Others (PLD 1993 SC 473):This case is referenced to emphasize the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the context of Public Interest Litigation, ensuring meaningful protection of the Rule of Law to all citizens.Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and Others v. Federation of Pakistan and Others (2012 SCMR 455):This case is cited to underscore the court's consistent exercise of jurisdiction to scrutinize government transactions, particularly those involving public money and property, to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness.Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and Others (PLD 2012 SC 132):This case is referenced in the context of exercising jurisdiction of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety in matters where government bodies exercise their contractual powers.Suo Motu Case, action regarding huge loss to public exchequer by ignoring lowest bid of Fauji Foundation and Multinational Energy from Vitol by awarding LNG Contract (PLD 2010 SC 731):This case is mentioned to illustrate the court's previous scrutiny of transactions to prevent loss to the public exchequer.Human Rights Cases, action taken on news clippings regarding Fast Food outlet in F-9 Park Islamabad (PLD 2010 SC 759):This case is cited as an example of the court's scrutiny of matters related to public interest.Non-Transparent Procedure of Purchase of 150 Locomotives by Ministry of Railways Resultantly Causing 40 Billion Losses to the National Exchequer, Suo Motu Case (2012 SCMR 226): This case is referred to highlight the court's involvement in cases related to financial losses to the national exchequer.Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc., Human Rights Case (2012 SCMR 773): This case is cited to show instances where the court has exercised jurisdiction to investigate alleged corruption in government contracts.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Preamble---Constitution mandates that State shall exercise its powers and authority through chosenrepresentatives of the people---Democratic order in place, through the representatives of people, being themembers of Parliament, obligates the elected representatives to fulfil their commitments bestowed uponthem under the Constitution, and in their representative capacity, they are bound to perform their functionshonestly, to the best of their ability, faithfully, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws as well asthe rules of the Assembly, and always in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well being andprosperity of Pakistan---Such a binding force of the Constitution commands them to ensure well being andprosperity of Pakistan, so whenever they feel threat to the well being of the people of Pakistan for anyreasons, they are bound to preserve the same.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-----Art. 24--- Protection of property rights--- Government/Executive being the custodian of the nationalresources on behalf of the nation is bound to preserve and protect the same by strictly adhering to therelevant laws, conventions, experiences and have no authority to compromise with the resources, whichfall within the definition of property in terms of constitutional provisions, belonging to general massesfalling within the ambit of Art.24 of the Constitution.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts. 29 & 2A--- Principles of Policy--- Objectives Resolution---Government under Art.29 read withArt.2A of the Constitution is bound to formulate policies for the promotion of social and economic wellbeing of the people, which includes provision of facilities to the citizens for work and adequate livelihoodwith a reasonable rest and leisure, etc.---Energy/electricity is essentially one of the significant facilitiesrequired by the citizens for manifold purposes, namely, uplifting of their social and economic status---Non-supply of electricity to the citizens regularly, is tantamount to depriving them of one of the essentialsof the life including the security of economic activities, which are relatable to their fundamental rightsprotected under Arts. 9 and 14 of the Constitution.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 9---Security of person---Scope of Art.9 is enlarged to each and every aspect of human life--Whenever a policy is framed with reference to uplifting the socio-economic conditions of the citizens,object should be to ensure enforcement of their fundamental rights.Bank of Punjab v. Haris Steel Industries PLD 2010 SC 1109; Liaqat Hussain v. The Federation of Pakistan(Constitution Petition No.50/2011), In Re: Human Rights Case regarding fast food chain in F-9 Park PLD2010 SC 759; In Re: SMC No.13/2009 (Case regarding Multi-Professional Housing Schemes); PLD 2011SC 619 and Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 ref(e) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 184---Judicial review---Scope---Power of Supreme Court to examine polices of the Government--Award of contract---As far as transparency in the implementation of the policy, if available, the process ofawarding contract is concerned, it clearly falls within the jurisdiction of Supreme Court available to itunder the Constitution and the power of judicial review.BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 350; Watan Party v. Federation ofPakistan PLD 2006 SC 697; Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority PLD 2006 SC 394; PakistanSteels's case PLD 2010 SC 759; HRC No.4688/06 PLD 2001 SC 619; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489]; Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6SCC 651] = (AIR 1996 SC 11); Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (AIR 2004 SC 4299)= [(1999) 1 SCC 492]; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [(2000) 2 SCC 617]; RelianceEnergy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp. Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 1] and Nokia SiemensNetworks Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Judgment dated 24-8-2009 And. Pra. High Court) ref.(f) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 184---Judicial review---Scope---Transparency in award of contract---Executive authorities arebound to enter into contracts for supplies at the least expense to the public exchequer---Most significantconsideration for every department of the Government must be the best economic mode of meeting thepublic needs---Agreements for pecuniary considerations are against public policy and, are void---Everyaction taken by the Government must be in public interest and its action would be liable to be invalidatedon the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would beunconstitutional and invalid---Principles.Tool Company v. Norris [69 U.S. (2 Well.) 45 (1864)]; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International AirportAuthority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628; Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports (Pvt.) Ltd.[(2007) 1 Supreme 704; Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1147) and Haji T.M.Hasan v. Kerala Financial Corpn. (AIR 1988 SC 157) ref.(g) Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)-------S. 5---Functions and powers of the Authority---Procurement of electricity through Rental PowerProjects---Procurement Authority may take such measures and exercise such powers as may be necessaryfor improving governance, management, transparency, accountability and quality of public procurementof goods, services and works in the public sector---Words 'transparency' and 'accountability' are of highimportance and cast a duty upon the Authority who had invited the bids to ensure openness of thetransaction without withholding any information---Competition to establish transparency between theinterested parties is in fact the theme of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 aswell as the Rules framed thereunder (Public Procurement Rules, 2004)---Bidders have to compete witheach other by filing their respective bids, therefore, while making procurement of an item like electricitythrough Rental Power Projects, the Authority is required to fix a reserved price while quoting lump sumRental Charges, Rental Rate and Reference Fuel Cost Components---In absence of such reserved prices,there would not be transparent competition and accountability of the bidders and procurers---In a sale byauction, subject to reserve price, every offer/bid and its acceptance is conditional; the public is informedby the fact, that the sale is subject to a reserve price; the auctioneer has agreed to sell for the amount whichthe bidder is prepared to give only in case that amount is equal to or higher than the reserve price; thereserve price puts a limit on the authority of the auctioneer and he cannot accept a price below theupset/reserve price---In the present case, neither the reserved price had been mentioned in the publication,in pursuance whereof the bids were invited, nor such reserve price had been disclosed in RFP---Inadvertisement made by PPIB, except mentioning Rental Power Project of 200 MW cumulative capacitynear Karachi, neither the sites were indicated nor the type of fuel or technology of plant was mentioned forthis purpose and there was no bidding process for unsolicited RPPs. McManus v. Fortescue [(1907) 2 KB1] ref.(h) Public Procurement Rules, 2004--------R. 42---Alternative methods of procurements---Direct contracting Procurement of electricity throughRental Power Projects---Direct procurement of unsolicited proposal for Rental Power Projects withoutfollowing procedure of fair competition---Validity---Rule 42(c) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004indicated that it was not applicable in the case of such direct procurement of unsolicited proposal---Malafide---Scope---No material had been brought on record to canvass that there was no mala fide; therefore,having been left with no option except to believe that on account of such unsolicited proposals, authoritieshad indulged in corruption.(i) Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Power Act (XL of 1997)-------Ss. 7, 17 & 31---National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules,1998, R.17---Process of procurement of electricity through Rental Power Projects---Role of NationalElectric Regulatory Authority---Scope.(j) Contract Act (IX of 1972)-------S. 2(h) & (g)---"Contract"---Contract being a bilateral document has to be reduced into writing bymeans of an agreement enforceable by law between the person who had made the proposal and the onewho had accepted the same, or those who had made an offer to do a particular thing and accepted the same---Agreement enforceable by law is a "contract".(k) Public Procurement Rules, 2004-------R. 2(f)---Where in a contract, procedure laid down in the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 was notfollowed the expression "unsolicited" was used for such contract.(l) Contempt of Court-------Scope---Contempt proceedings are drawn when there is a violation of the court order, or the authorityof the court is undermined or ridiculed.(m) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 9---Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2005), S. 5---Corruption andcorrupt practices---Procurement of electricity through Rental Power Projects---Violation of principle oftransparency and decision of ECC---All the Government functionaries, including the Ministers for Waterand Power holding charge from 2006 and onward up to 2008 during whose tenure the Rental PowerProjects were approved/set up, prima facie, violated the principle of transparency, therefore, theirinvolvement in getting financial benefits out of the same by indulging in corruption and corrupt practicescould not be overruled---Consequently, they were liable to be dealt with under the National AccountabilityOrdinance, 1999------Similarly, all the functionaries of Pakistan Electric Power Company, GenerationCompanies and National Electric Power Regulatory Authority along with sponsors who had derivedfinancial benefits from the said projects contracts were, prima facie, involved in corruption and corruptpractices therefore, they were liable both for the civil and criminal action---Supreme Court, whileidentifying the violations in procurement of electricity through Rental Power Projects, issued detaileddirections for dealing with the matter and persons involved in corruption and corrupt practices.

Summary: (a) Constitutional Petition: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Maintainability---Procurement disputes---Regulatory intervention by PPRA---Judicial review--- Petitioner challenged decision of Punjab PPRA allowing post-bid submission of declarations by a competing bidder (respondent No.6) in a procurement process initiated by Jinnah Hospital, Lahore—Petitioner alleged that such acceptance altered the substance and structure of the original bid and violated Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014—Court held that regulatory decisions issued by PPRA are subject to limited judicial review, primarily where there is manifest illegality or abuse of discretion—Impugned decision was found to be consistent with the law and procurement policy. (b) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014: ----R. 33(2)---Post-bid clarifications---Substance of bid---Scope and limitations--- Court interpreted Rule 33(2) to permit the procuring agency to accept clarifications after bid opening, provided such clarifications do not alter the substance of the bid—Held, declarations required under bidding document clauses (k) to (o), including undertakings regarding non-blacklisting, non-prosecution, and regulatory compliance, were procedural in nature and did not relate to core technical or financial evaluation—In contrast, parameters like bid security, GMP certification, financial turnover, and product registrations had direct bearing on substantive merit of bid—Omissions in procedural declarations held curable under Rule 33(2). (c) Public Procurement---Eligibility criteria---Substance vs. procedure--- Court differentiated between procedural affirmations and substantive eligibility—Parameters such as ISO certifications, CE/FDA approvals, and financial turnover were deemed substantive, impacting competitiveness and evaluation—However, undertakings confirming no prosecution or blacklisting, though labeled "compulsory", were procedural unless found to be misleading—Court held that minor lapses in procedural declarations may be regularized without undermining fairness or transparency of procurement process. (d) Administrative law: ----Regulatory discretion---Judicial restraint---Role of PPRA--- Court acknowledged that PPRA, as a specialized regulatory body, is empowered to issue clarifications and ensure uniformity in procurement practices—Held, PPRA’s proactive role in advising procuring agencies to distinguish between procedural and substantive requirements serves broader public interest and promotes non-discriminatory procurement practices—Impugned order of PPRA was found to be a valid exercise of regulatory discretion consistent with Rule 33(2). (e) Administrative law: ----Procurement fairness---Dismissal of petition--- Court held that allowing respondent No.6 to submit required declarations after bid opening neither provided unfair advantage nor compromised transparency—Procurement regime must balance procedural rigor with practical flexibility—Petition dismissed as devoid of merit—No order as to costs. -----Quote: Scope of Rule 33(2) of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 ("PPRA Rules"). Held that the procurement regime must balance the principles of fairness and transparency with procedural practicality. Rule 33(2) of the PPRA Rules permits flexibility to cure such procedural deficiencies, provided the core integrity and competitive standing of the bid remain unaffected. Here, the supplemental documents neither granted undue advantage to respondent No.6 nor undermined the fairness of the bidding process.

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: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 34—Stay of legal proceedings—Scope—Discretion of the Court—Joint Venture Agreement (JV Agreement) containing an arbitration clause—Plaintiff (PEB) filed a civil suit for damages against its JV partners and third parties (ERRA and PERRA)—Defendants (A&ACC and Buildcore) invoked S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking stay of proceedings—Civil Court allowed the stay—Held, where parties to a contract have agreed to arbitration, the Court must ordinarily hold them to their bargain, but this rule is not absolute—Section 34 grants the Court discretion to stay proceedings or not, based on the peculiar facts of each case—Court must assess whether all conditions under S. 34 are satisfied and whether there exist sufficient reasons to refuse a stay—Where a party to an arbitration agreement is joined with non-parties in a suit and the claims are not severable, staying proceedings may lead to conflicting decisions by different forums—Civil Court erred in staying proceedings against all defendants, including those not party to the JV Agreement—Appeal allowed, order of stay set aside—Case law discussed: Eckhardt & Co. Marine GmbH v. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 1993 SC 42); Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. v. Macdonald Layton & Co. Ltd. (1996 SCMR 690); Rachappa Gurudappa Bijapur v. Gurudiddappa Nurandappa (AIR 1989 SC 635). (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908): ----O. VII, R. 11—Rejection of plaint—Territorial jurisdiction—Suit filed at Islamabad—Defendants (ERRA and PERRA) contended that the Civil Court at Islamabad lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the contracts were executed and performed in Mansehra—Held, determination of territorial jurisdiction requires evidence and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage—ERRA’s role in project meetings at Islamabad established some connection to the forum—Application for rejection of plaint dismissed—Case law discussed: Tradesmen International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 MLD 541); National Development Leasing Corporation Ltd. v. Chairman, Banking Tribunal (2000 YLR 1769). (c) Contract Law—Joint Ventures— ----Arbitration clause and multi-party litigation—Scope—Plaintiff’s claims against JV partners intertwined with claims against a non-party to the arbitration agreement—Held, where claims against multiple defendants arise from a common transaction and are not severable, bifurcation of proceedings is improper—Allowing arbitration for some claims while continuing a civil suit for others risks contradictory findings—Arbitration clause in a JV Agreement does not bind a non-party (ERRA, PERRA) absent a clear contractual obligation—Court exercised discretion correctly in refusing to reject the plaint—Appeal allowed, suit to proceed before Civil Court. (d) Administration of Justice— ----Stay of proceedings and multiplicity of litigation—Scope—Courts must avoid a situation where disputes are split between different forums leading to conflicting decisions—Where third parties are impleaded in a suit alongside parties to an arbitration agreement, Courts must carefully assess whether the joinder is genuine or aimed at evading arbitration—In the instant case, PEB’s claim against ERRA and PERRA was integral to its claims against the JV partners, making arbitration an inadequate remedy—Appeal allowed, revision petition dismissed. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed, stay of proceedings set aside—Civil Court directed to continue proceedings—Revision petition dismissed.

Summary: Rule 48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004--The case involves a dispute over a tender process conducted by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) for the supply of pilot boats. The plaintiff participated in the tender process and raised objections about the technical qualifications of the competing bidder, Ocean World. The plaintiff's objections led to the tender being discharged by the KPT. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the bidding process was not transparent and that the KPT had acted unlawfully. The KPT argued that the plaintiff should have followed the grievance redressal mechanism specified under Rule 48 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPR), and that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by this rule. The judge determined that Rule 48, which provides for a grievance redressal committee and an appeal process, does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of a civil court. The judge also cites precedent to emphasize that the jurisdiction of civil courts should not be inferred lightly and that certain conditions need to be met to establish an ouster of jurisdiction. In this case, since the grievance redressal committee was constituted by the KPT after the lawsuit was filed and the plaintiff's access to the committee was not provided timely, the judge rules that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not ousted. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the KPT's application for rejection of the plaintiff's suit based on the argument of jurisdiction.