Summary: Background: The National Highway Authority (NHA) awarded a contract for the rehabilitation of a national highway. After the completion of the project, road rutting occurred, leading to a dispute between the NHA and the Contractor. The NHA argued that the rutting was due to defective workmanship by the Contractor, while the Contractor contended it was due to design flaws and premature opening of the road by the NHA. The Contractor agreed to carry out repair works and submitted a payment claim, which was rejected by the Engineer and the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) but allowed by the Arbitrator. The Contractor filed an application to make the arbitration award a rule of the Court, which the NHA objected to but was dismissed by the Civil Judge for being time-barred. ----Issues: 1- Whether the NHA's objections to the arbitration award were dismissed correctly for being time-barred. 2- Whether the Arbitrator extended the scope of Clause 20.1 of the contract by accepting a claim filed beyond the stipulated timeline. 3- Whether the Arbitrator had the power to award financing charges prior to the date of the award. 4- Whether the rutting was due to the Contractor's defective workmanship or NHA's premature road opening. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Dismissal of Objections: The Court held that although the NHA received notice on 17.11.2021 and filed objections on 07.01.2022 (beyond the 30-day limitation), the NHA was aware of the award's existence. Therefore, the dismissal was appropriate, and NHA suffered no prejudice as the Civil Court scrutinized the award before making it a rule of the Court. ---Scope of Clause 20.1: The Arbitrator's interpretation of Clause 20.1 was upheld. The clause's timeframe for submitting a fully substantiated claim was not violated since the repair works were ongoing, and the ---Contractor had kept the NHA informed. The Arbitrator found that the spirit of Clause 20.1 was satisfied. ----Financing Charges: The Arbitrator awarded financing charges at the rate stipulated in the contract. The Court found this to be in line with Clause 14.8 of the FIDIC Contract, which allows for such charges without formal notice or certification. The Arbitrator’s award of financing charges from the date when the payment certificate should have been issued was deemed correct. ----Defective Workmanship vs. Premature Road Opening: The Arbitrator concluded that the rutting was due to NHA's premature opening of the road and design flaws, not the Contractor's defective workmanship. This conclusion was based on a meticulous analysis of the evidence, and the Court found no error apparent on the face of the award. ----Citations/Precedents: M/s Joint Venture KG/Rist vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 108) Oil and Gas Development Company Limited vs. M/s Marathon Construction Company and another (2013 CLD 1483) Mian Corporation vs. M/s Lever Brothers of Pakistan Limited (PLD 2006 SC 169) Henry Boot Construction Ltd vs. Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3850 CA Lahore Development Authority vs. Khalid Javed Co. (1983 SCMR 718) Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad vs. Multi-National Venture Development Private Limited (2019 CLD 566)

Summary: Background: The Lahore High Court dealt with two writ petitions (W.P. No. 28679/2023 and W.P. No. 33077/2023) involving M/s Computer Tips, M/s Kingly Solutions (Pvt) Limited, and other respondents including the Province of Punjab and various government officers. The petitions concerned the procurement of PC tablets and Early Childhood Education (ECE) kits by the Program Monitoring & Implementation Unit (PMIU), Punjab Education Sector Reform Program, following the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009, and related rules. The main issue revolved around the non-payment and forced rebate deductions in the execution of the contracts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners were entitled to full contract payments without deductions for rebates that they claimed were coerced. 2- Whether the procurement processes were conducted fairly and in compliance with statutory requirements. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to release the complete contract prices within 30 days. It held that:The procurement processes were initially compliant with the legal requirements; however, the coercion for rebates upon full performance of the contracts by the petitioners constituted an unfair and non-transparent practice.The forced rebates were deemed arbitrary and against the principles of fair procurement. The non-payment of full contract prices was seen as an undue pressure tactic against the petitioners.The petitions were upheld due to the clear statutory and contractual breaches by the respondents in failing to make timely payments, compelling the petitioners to accept reduced payments under duress. ----Citations/Precedents: Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009: Sets the legislative framework for public procurement in Punjab.Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014: Provides detailed procedures and requirements for public procurement.Messrs Ramna Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited v. Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines (Pvt.) and others (2004 SCMR 1274): Reinforces the principle that contracts involving public interest must be transparent, fair, and free from malpractice, subject to judicial review.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a hotel representative, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions to issue a work order in its favor for running messes, canteen, and cafeteria for hostels of a university based on an advertisement and in accordance with PPRA rules. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was justified. 2- Whether the petitioner should have pursued an alternative remedy under Rule 48 of the PPRA Rules before approaching the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, reasoning that the petitioner failed to utilize the alternative remedy available under Rule 48 of the PPRA Rules, which provides a clear process for addressing grievances through the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). The court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction should be invoked only when no other adequate remedy is available. The petitioner did not lodge a written complaint within the stipulated time after the technical and final evaluation reports, instead opting to directly approach the High Court. This action was deemed procedurally inappropriate, especially since the PPRA Rules outline a specific process for such grievances. -----Citations/Precedents: Azad Govt. & others vs. Mubashar Aziz Qadri, 2019 SCR 71: The court held that for grievances under the PPRA Rules, the alternate remedy should be pursued before approaching the court. Noman Razzaq vs. Faryad Hussain Ch. & others, 2014 SCR 921: This case reinforced that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is contingent on the absence of other adequate remedies. Muhammad Rasib vs. Mst. Maqsood Begum, 2011 SCR 59: The court observed that writ petitions should not be entertained when a civil court or a special tribunal is competent to decide the matter. Ch. M. Ismail vs. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore, PLD 1996 SC 246: The decision highlighted that the misuse of constitutional jurisdiction could lead to an overwhelming burden on the High Court.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a contracting company, participated in a bid for toll plaza management on the Lahore-Abdul Hakeem Motorway. After winning the bid with a quoted amount of Rs.4,082,400,000/-, the company requested the National Highway Authority (NHA) to adjust this bid amount, claiming an error that included taxes. NHA refused the adjustment and, upon the petitioner's failure to provide performance security, forfeited the bid security of Rs.82 million. The petitioner sought judicial review, which was dismissed by the Islamabad High Court, leading to this appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether NHA's refusal to adjust the bid amount after its acceptance was unlawful. -----2- Whether NHA's forfeiture of the bid security was justifiable under the terms of the bid agreement. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-Adjustment of Bid: The court upheld NHA’s refusal to alter the bid, noting that the bidding terms explicitly required amounts exclusive of taxes. It emphasized that the bidding process did not allow for post-acceptance adjustments, as doing so would undermine the competitive bidding system. --Forfeiture of Bid Security: The court found the forfeiture of the bid security justified. As the petitioner did not comply with the requirement to provide performance security within the stipulated time, NHA acted within its rights under the bid’s terms to annul the award and forfeit the security. --Judicial Review Scope: The court reiterated that judicial intervention in contractual terms is limited unless arbitrary or discriminatory practices are evident, which was not the case here. ------Citations/Precedents: National Institutional Facilitation Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federal Board of Revenue (PLD 2020 Islamabad 378) West Bengal State Electricity v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. (AIR 2001 SC 682) Tez Gas (Private) Ltd. v. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (PLD 2017 Lahore 111) Tata Cellular v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 11) Conclusion The appeal was dismissed, affirming NHA’s actions as compliant with the terms of the bidding process and lawful. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing that NHA's actions were neither arbitrary nor unfai

Summary: The appellant, a contractor, was awarded a contract by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to furnish 24 suites at Parliament Lodges. The contract, dated 14.01.1997, was valued at Rs.4,667,889. The appellant completed the work within the prescribed 60-day period, but CDA delayed the payment of the outstanding amount. Although part of the payment was made, Rs.2,514,493 remained unpaid. The appellant filed a suit in 1999, which led to a decree for Rs.241,330, with the claim for escalation charges and interest being denied by the Civil Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was entitled to escalation charges for the delay in payment. 2- Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the outstanding payment. 3- Whether CDA's refusal to pay the remaining amount was justified due to defects in the appellant’s work. 4- Whether the Civil Court’s judgment failed to address damages for CDA's breach of contract. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the Civil Court's decree, awarding Rs.241,330 to the appellant but denying escalation charges. However, the High Court found that the Civil Court erred in not awarding interest. It was established that CDA breached the contract by delaying payment without justifiable cause. The Court determined that the appellant was entitled to interest at an average rate of 11% per annum from 25.04.1997 until the payment of the outstanding amount in installments. The claim for escalation charges was dismissed based on contract terms explicitly disallowing such charges. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Discretionary power to award interest on the principal sum. Najm Koreshi Vs Chase Manhattan Bank now Muslim Commercial Limited, Lahore (2015 SCMR 1461): Clarified the court’s discretion to award interest under Section 34. Lahore Development Authority Vs. M/s Faisal International Construction Corporation Limited (2004 CLC 1879): Affirmed the court's discretion in awarding interest. Federation of Pakistan Vs. M/s Aalme Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. (2015 CLC 1273): Held that delay in payment attracts the provisions of Section 34 CPC.

Summary: Background:The case of M.N. Construction Company v. Government of Balochistan and others (PLD 2024 Balochistan 38) involves a constitutional petition filed by M.N. Construction Company, which contested the requirements for bid security during the procurement process for two major dam projects in Balochistan?Panjgur Storage Dam and Awaran Dam. The company argued against the exclusive demand for bid security in the form of Bank Guarantee or Deposit at Call, proposing instead to use an Insurance Bond/Guarantee from an AA-rated insurance company.---Issues:The primary issue was whether the bid security requirement limiting forms of security to Bank Guarantees or Deposits at Call, without allowing for Insurance Bonds/Guarantees, constituted a discriminatory and restrictive practice in the context of the Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014, specifically Rules 37 and 41. The petitioner argued that this restriction hindered competitive bidding by potentially reducing the number of qualified bidders.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Balochistan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the restriction to only Bank Guarantees or Deposits at Call as forms of bid security was too restrictive and not in line with the principles of competitive bidding as outlined in the Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014. The court permitted M.N. Construction Company to provide bid security in the form of an Insurance Bond/Guarantee from an AA-rated insurance company, thereby enabling them to participate in the bidding process for the two projects. This decision was aimed at ensuring that the procurement process remained competitive and fair, adhering to the rules which advocate for non-discriminatory and inclusive bidding practices.---Citations/Precedents:Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014 (Rr. 37 & 41)Judgment in C.P. No.757/2021 regarding bid security optionsStandard Form of Bidding Documents (Civil Works) issued by the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) and approved by the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC)Various procurement rules comparisons from other Pakistani provinces and the Federal Government, highlighting inconsistencies with Balochistan's procurement rules

Summary: (a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPR-2004) ----R. 48----Obligation to constitute Grievance Redressal Committee (G.R.C.)----Applicability of international financing agreements. Where a project is funded by an international financial institution under a loan agreement that provides specific procurement guidelines, Rule 48 of the PPR-2004 does not mandatorily apply if the procurement guidelines provide an alternative grievance redressal mechanism. The procuring agency must adhere to the provisions of the loan agreement to the extent of conflict with PPR-2004. Cited Cases: • Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D. Baloch Private Limited v. Punjab Irrigation Department (2020 CLC 1303). Disposition: Petition dismissed; PPR-2004 does not override ADB procurement guidelines. (b) Asian Development Bank Procurement Guidelines, 2015 ----Confidentiality of bid evaluation----Deferred disclosure of reasons for disqualification. The ADB Procurement Guidelines provide that reasons for disqualification of bidders shall not be disclosed until after the publication of the contract award. Such provisions aim to ensure the integrity and continuity of the procurement process. However, unsuccessful bidders retain the right to request a debriefing or file a complaint after the notification of the contract award. Cited Cases: • National High-Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited (AIR 2022 SC 866). Disposition: Deferred disclosure upheld; bidders’ rights preserved post-award. (c) Procurement Regulations for ADB Borrowers, 2017 (Appendix-7) ----Procedure for grievance redressal----Scope of alternative remedies. The Procurement Regulations for ADB Borrowers outline a specific procedure for dealing with procurement-related complaints, including grievances regarding disqualification or award decisions. These regulations provide an adequate alternative remedy, which precludes reliance on Rule 48 of the PPR-2004. Disposition: Petition dismissed as alternative remedies are available under ADB guidelines. (d) Invitation to Bid (ITB) ----Cl. 26.1, 43.2 & 46.1----Contractual obligations in bid documents----Confidentiality and grievance redressal mechanisms. The terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) are binding on bidders. Confidentiality clauses prevent disclosure of evaluation details until after the contract award. Provisions for debriefing and grievance resolution, as stipulated in the ITB, ensure transparency and fairness while preserving the integrity of the procurement process. Disposition: ITB terms upheld; petitioners required to follow ITB grievance procedures. (e) Jurisdiction----Judicial review in foreign-funded procurement. The scope of judicial review in foreign-funded procurement projects is limited to ensuring fairness and transparency. Courts are reluctant to interfere unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, favoritism, or breach of mandatory rules. Cited Cases: • Tezgas (Private) Limited v. OGRA (PLD 2017 Lahore 111). • National High-Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited (AIR 2022 SC 866). Disposition: Judicial review denied; petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPRA Rules) ----Rules 33, 38, and 44—Public procurement—Cancellation of tender—Interpretation of PPRA Rules—Maintainability of writ petition—Petitioner challenged the cancellation of tender by NADRA, arguing that the issuance of a purchase order constituted a binding contract under Rule 44 of the PPRA Rules, and cancellation violated Rules 33 and 38. The court held that Rule 33 applies only to the rejection of bids before their acceptance, and Rule 38 governs the acceptance of the most advantageous bid if the procurement proceeds. Rule 44 provides that a procurement contract is effective upon bid acceptance only if no formal signing of a contract is required. In the present case, the purchase order was conditional on the signing of a formal contract, which had not occurred. (b) Contracts—Nature and enforceability ----Software supply agreements—Conditional purchase orders and the doctrine of "agreement to agree"—Court emphasized that software supply, installation, and maintenance contracts involve detailed terms requiring a definitive agreement. The purchase order issued by NADRA was expressly contingent on signing a formal contract. Even if a contract was assumed to exist, its breach could not be addressed under constitutional jurisdiction but rather through a suit for damages. (c) Constitutional law—Scope of judicial review ----Writ of mandamus—Limits of judicial intervention in public procurement—Court clarified that a constitutional court cannot compel a public procurement agency to proceed with a project it no longer wishes to implement, as this would amount to specific performance of a contract, which is not enforceable in constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner’s remedy, if any, lies in appropriate forums outside of constitutional writ jurisdiction. (d) Natural justice ----Right to hearing—Cancellation versus abandonment of procurement—Court held that the cancellation of tender did not constitute an adverse action against the petitioner. As the project itself was abandoned, there was no violation of the petitioner’s rights that warranted a hearing. The petitioner did not acquire a vested right to demand the implementation of the project or its execution through external sourcing. Disposition: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court holding that constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked to enforce procurement decisions or compel the implementation of projects abandoned by a public authority. The petitioner was advised to seek remedies, if any, in other forums. Cited Case: • Messers Fast Track v. FIA (2021 CLC 1160 Islamabad).

Summary: The procurement entity is competent to reject any or all bids and annul the procurement process for reasons to be recorded in writing prior to the award of Contract.A tender notice is merely an invitation for making an offer and not by itself an offer or proposal. The advertisement does not constitute a proposal, which would bind the authority to award the contract to the petitioner, who made the lowest bid. It is merely an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained within such margin as the procuring entity is willing to adopt.The advertisement inviting applications for pre-qualification for providing Operation & Maintenance Services, therefore, is not a proposal within the meaning of the Contract Act, but it invites a proposal. The acceptance of the application may be qualified by several conditions. The submission of application for pre-qualification being in the nature of a proposal or offer unless the application is accepted by the Competent Authority/Procurement Entity and the said acceptance is communicated to the applicant, the contract cannot be said to be concluded between the parties and no legal right accrued to such bidder. An advertisement for providing Operation & Maintenance Services is a mere declaration and does not amount to a contract with anyone who may act upon it.

Summary: The petitioner, a private limited company, submitted a bid in response to a tender for the construction of transmission lines in relation to a power project in Gwadar, Balochistan. The bid was subject to a bid security and validity period as per the Public Procurement Rules, 2004. The bid validity period was extended multiple times with the consent of all bidders, including the petitioner. The petitioner's bid was evaluated and found to be the most advantageous, and they were awarded the contract. However, the petitioner failed to furnish the required performance security within the specified time, and their bank guarantee was encashed. The petitioner challenged the encashment in the High Court, but their petition was dismissed. The court ruled that the petitioner had agreed to the extensions of the bid validity period without any conditions regarding price increases. The procuring agency was not obligated to accept the petitioner's request for price changes after the bid was finalized. The court concluded that the encashment of the bank guarantee was justified, and the petitioner's request for leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.