Summary: The petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Finance, and the FBR sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The petitioners' representative, Mr. Muhammad Khalil Dogar, argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the contract awarded to NLC Construction Solutions (NCSPL). He contended that the Public Procurement Rules allowed for a viable third party, NCSPL, to participate in the project. Additionally, Mr. Dogar asserted that the FBR had the authority to award the contract to the most qualified contractor, as determined through a competitive bidding process. During the proceedings, questions were raised regarding the representation of the Federation of Pakistan by a private counsel instead of the Attorney-General or a law officer from the office of the Attorney General. The original case file revealed a power-of-attorney signed by Dr. Fareed Iqbal Qureshi, Collector of Customs, Model Collectorate of Custom Preventive, Custom House, Karachi, authorising an Advocate-on-Record (AOR). However, there was no authorisation by the Federation of Pakistan itself. Consequently, the petition filed on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan was deemed not maintainable by the Supreme Court. Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the case. While noting the lack of authorization for the Federation of Pakistan's representation, the Court proceeded to hear the petition on behalf of the FBR. The Court acknowledged the issues raised in the report of the Federal Tax Ombudsman and the concerns regarding the awarding of the contract to NCSPL. Ultimately, the Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, affirming the cancellation of the contract.

Summary: General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A), PPRA Rules, 2004 (Rule 36), PPRA Rules, 2004 ( Rule 25, 29, 30 and 31) Indeed, it appears that it was more than a month after opening of the bid that the appellant made an attempt to rectify its material inability by furnishing a separate/counter bank guarantee from Bank AlHabib for both the tenders. This deficiency could not have been resurrected as by then the ship sailed. These belated attempts would have amounted to a modification of the tender documents, which is not permissible under Rule 31 of Rules 2004. Eventually only those whose technical bids were found to be in consonance with the terms of the invitation, were liable to be considered for further steps and were considered accordingly. -Petitioner being aware of the said tender conditions participated and having participated in the tender cannot challenge or dislike prerequisites meant for technical qualification. He could only expect judicious treatment within the playing rules however, it was too late for appellant when it realized that playing conditions were not palatable to it. The situation faced by appellant based on the aforesaid facts is not res integra as a number of judgments are in the filed covering the issue as settled law.-Even if I have to measure bidding terms on the touchstone of malice and mala fide, I would come out with understanding that these terms are for every one and not to exclude anyone. These are commercial transactions and decisions in this regard should base on strict compliance of terms of tenders whereas equity and fair play based on financial offer is not primary concern. Even if someone intends to impress by showing better financial offer, he has to qualify first on technical grounds. It is the overall impact till completion of job that needs serious consideration by procuring agency. Whether a bidder has the ability to deliver as per terms of tenders and having capacity to ensure projects completion should be the primary concern of procuring agency. There is thus nothing which could lead to conclude that the process ended up in a decision of rejecting technical bid of appellant was flawed. - Any term within frame of law is also not open for a judicial review even under the hierarchy of procurement laws as Rule 25 enables the procuring agency to require bid security not exceeding five per cent of the bid price to be furnished by every bidder and procuring agency may save its effectiveness for a period as they required in terms of Rule 26.

Summary: The case revolved around the legality of demanding additional performance security exceeding 10% of the contract amount in accordance with Rule 56 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014. Various government departments advertised civic works and invited bids. After bid scrutiny, the lowest evaluated bids were selected, but procuring agencies demanded additional performance security from the bidders when the quoted amounts fell below the estimated costs. The controversy primarily concerns the interpretation of Rule 56 and clause 26-A of the bidding documents. Rule 56 mandates a performance guarantee not exceeding 10% of the contract amount. However, clause 26-A outlined conditions for additional performance security, requiring bidders to provide extra security when the quoted amount is below the estimated costs. The court distinguishes between performance guarantee and additional performance security, emphasizing that they are separate requirements. The dispute focused on the demand for additional security beyond 10% of the contract amount. The court examined two versions of clause 26-A, which differ in their language regarding the percentage limits for additional security. It acknowledges the confusion and discusses the implications of each version. The court ultimately decided that the requirement for additional security beyond 10% may be legitimate under certain conditions outlined in clause 26-A. The court direceds the concerned departments to assess each case individually and determine whether bidders are willing to provide additional security as required by the bidding documents. Bids falling under one version of clause 26-A may be canceled if bidders are unwilling to provide additional security, while bids under the other version may require compliance within a specified time frame. Syed Haji Abdul Wahid & another vs. Syed Sirajuddin (1998 SCMR 2296): This precedent demonstrated that even though Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn't directly apply to appeal proceedings, if an appellant demonstrates that they pursued a remedy before a wrong forum in good faith, the court may consider such a delay and condone it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. Lawari and 4 others (PLD 2000 SC 94): This case emphasized the concept of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, indicating that in certain circumstances, delays in filing appeals can be condoned based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Sherin and 4 others vs. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others (1995 SCMR 584): This precedent highlighted the principle that if the delay in filing an appeal is primarily due to the omission of a court or authority to take timely action, it can be considered a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that Rule 56 is not applicable to the circumstances of the case, and it addressed the ancillary question regarding the interpretation of clause 26-A by disposing of the petitions accordingly.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (VIII of 2009)-------S. 27---Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014, Rr. 56 & 56-A---Constitution ofPakistan, Arts. 10A & 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Documents, question as toauthenticity of---Alternate remedy, availability of- Petitioner/contractor who submitted thebid form for applying against contract works contended that the entire bid opening andawarding contract had been carried out in sheer violation of governing Balochistan PublicProcurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009 and Balochistan Public Procurement Rules,2014---Validity---Certain controversial questions involved in the matter which could only bedetermined/established before a civil Court and it required full-fledged enquiry/scrutiny thattoo after providing the full opportunity of hearing to both the parties---Filing complaintunder R. 56 and appeal under R. 56A of the said Rules, 2014 were the alternate remedieswhich petitioner had not availed---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Alternate remedy---Principle---Constitutionaljurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked in all matters as a matter of right---Suchjurisdiction had certain circumventions which the Court was required to keep in view whileexercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction---Availability of alternate remedy was one of thelimitations which barred exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Summary: -----Seeking direction to set aside the awarding the project through PPRA mode instead of PPA (a) Constitutional Law – Outsourcing of Pension Disbursement – Fundamental Rights of Pensioners ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 – Outsourcing of Pension Payments by Pakistan Post – Deduction of Service Fee from Pensioners Petitioner challenged the outsourcing of pension disbursement services by Pakistan Post to a private bank (Habib Bank Limited) and the deduction of service fees from pension payments. The court observed that Pakistan Post failed to justify its legal authority to outsource pension services, deduct fees from pensioners, and assume functions traditionally assigned to the Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts. The court expressed concern that such deductions violate constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and impose an unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer. -----Key Questions Raised by the Court: i. Under what legal authority does Pakistan Post disburse pensions? ii. Why are retired armed forces employees (grades 1–16) treated differently from higher grades? iii. Why cannot pensions be disbursed directly by established institutions like the Accountant General of Pakistan? iv. Can Pakistan Post lawfully deduct service fees from pension payments? v. If deductions are unlawful, should the deducted amounts be refunded, and by whom? vi. Is outsourcing pension disbursement services to a private bank legally permissible? -----Disposition: The Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts were appointed as amici curiae to submit a joint report addressing the raised queries. Pakistan Post and the Ministry of Communication were directed to provide comments justifying their actions.

Summary: The case revolves around the plaintiff's long-standing business relationship with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in supplying medicines and medical instruments. Despite the plaintiff's successful track record, they were disqualified from bidding on a contract due to alleged misrepresentation regarding their status with other entities, including Pakistan Navy?s Shifa Hospital. The plaintiff contended that the additional criteria imposed after bid opening were arbitrary and not part of the initial pre-qualification requirements. They argued that their disqualification violated the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, and the principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the decision to disqualify them was illegal, capricious, and an abuse of power. The court set aside the plaintiff's blacklisting and the negotiated awarding of the contract to other bidders. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to transparent and fair procurement procedures, as outlined in both domestic laws and international conventions against corruption.

Summary: Background:The Gilgit-Baltistan Business Group, along with other petitioners, filed a writ petition under Section 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 and enabling Articles of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the tender process for plantation of 5 million plants under a consolidated single tender. They argued that the process was unlawful, lacked jurisdiction, and was motivated by malafide intentions to protect vested interests.---Issues:Whether the tender process for the plantation project was conducted lawfully and with jurisdiction.Whether the decision to have a consolidated single tender process was fair and in the public interest.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case and dismissed the writ petition. The court found that the Forest Department of Gilgit-Baltistan had received budgetary allocations from the Federal Government for the plantation project. The procurement process was carried out according to PPRA rules, and technical bid documents were formulated by a committee comprising senior technical officers. The court noted that the petitioners' argument to bifurcate the tender process for each district lacked merit, as it was the prerogative of the procuring agency to make administrative decisions. Furthermore, the respondents had already allocated plants to each district. The court directed the respondents to submit quarterly progress reports on the plantation project. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018Constitution of PakistanPublic Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules 2004

Summary: The petitioner sought to be declared as the lowest evaluated bidder in a previous tender that was canceled two months before the current impugned tender was issued. The petitioner argued that its rights had vested due to the previous tender process and that the cancellation was unjust. They claimed that participating in a new bidding process would disadvantage them and undermine their international reputation as a supplier. The respondents, PIA and others, defended the cancellation and the subsequent tender process, asserting that no infirmity existed in the actions taken. The court examined various legal aspects, including the Public Procurement Rules of 2004, bid validity periods, and the petitioner's claims of vested rights. The court ruled that the petitioner's claims lacked merit, highlighting that the mere submission of a bid does not create an absolute right to a contract. The court also emphasized the importance of complying with bid validity periods and the proper procedure for tender cancellations. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner's claims, stating that no arbitrariness or illegality was evident in the tender processes in question.

Summary: The case involves two petitioners, Otsuka Pakistan Limited and Mediflow Pharmaceuticals (Private) Limited, challenging the decision of the Province of Sindh to award a tender to respondent no. 6/7 for the supply of Large Volume Parenterals (LVPs) without an injection port and eurocap, despite the tender's explicit requirement for these components. The judgment discusses various points, including the financial soundness requirement for bidders, the importance of eurocap in medical supplies, and the deviation from the tender's terms and conditions. The Court finds that the decision to accept the bid of respondent no. 6/7 was unjustified, as they did not meet the financial requirement and their products did not comply with the required specifications. The Court cites previous legal precedents to support its reasoning and emphasizes the importance of transparency in procurement processes. As a result, the Court sets aside the decision (referred to as the "Impugned Decision") and declares the constituent of the tender process that led to the acceptance of respondent no. 6/7's bid as void. The Court orders that the respondents initiate a new tendering process within a specified timeframe to allow all eligible parties to participate.

Summary: Background:MS Saltanat Khan and Company, the petitioner, challenged the judgments/orders passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit on 04-03-2019 and the Civil Judge Gilgit on 23-02-2019. The dispute arose from a bidding process for the construction of a middle school in Teru, Tehsil Gupis, District Ghizer. The petitioner, despite being the lowest bidder, was not awarded the contract due to proposed changes in the project design. The petitioner sought an injunction to compel the respondents to issue the work order in their favor.----Issues:Whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction over matters concerning development schemes.Whether the petitioner is entitled to an injunction compelling the respondents to issue the work order for the project.Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner's bid and planning to re-tender the project.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the civil revision petition, reasoning that:The dispute concerns a development scheme, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts over such matters was ousted by a previous judgment of the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (CSA No. 03/09).The petitioner did not include a request for permanent or temporary injunction in their suit/plaint as consequential relief, thus failing to establish a prima facie case.Losses claimed by the petitioner are measurable in monetary terms, which do not qualify as irreparable loss under the law.Under Rule 33(1) of the Public Procurement Rules 2004, the procuring agency (respondents) has the discretion to reject all bids or proposals at any time prior to acceptance, justifying their decision to not award the contract to the petitioner and to re-tender the project.