Summary: The judgment addressed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 61(2) and (3) of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, as amended in 2016. The petitioner argued that these amendments, which favor public sector manufacturers over private sector bidders, are ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan. The respondents defend the amendments, stating they are in line with the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009, and promote the interests of a public sector manufacturing unit transferred to TEVTA. The court examined the constitutional aspects, emphasized the need for transparency and fair competition in public procurement. It concluded that the amendments violate the Constitution, specifically Articles 4, 18, and 25, by discriminating against private sector manufacturers. The court declared Rule 61(2) and (3) ultra vires and strikes them down. The connected writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Background:The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) initiated a process to open up the telecommunication sector and increase investment and competition. As part of this initiative, PTA invited bids for the award of two technology-neutral National Mobile Cellular Licenses through a bidding/auction process. The Consortium, comprising Space Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. and two foreign companies, submitted a bid which was accepted by PTA for a license. However, the Consortium failed to make the required payment, leading to the forfeiture of the earnest money.---Issues:Whether the forfeiture of the earnest money by PTA was justified under the terms of the bidding process and the contract.Whether the petitioner, Space Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd., was entitled to a refund of its contribution to the earnest money.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that PTA was justified in forfeiting the earnest money based on the terms stipulated in the bidding process and the contract. The clauses in the Memorandum clearly stated that earnest money would be forfeited if the required payments were not made. The petitioner's argument that it was prevented from making the payment due to a court order was not convincing, as there was no evidence that the petitioner contested the suit or attempted to set aside the order. Additionally, the amount forfeited constituted a small percentage of the total bid and was deemed reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the earnest money.---Citations/Precedents:Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872Province of West Pakistan v Mistri Patel & Co. (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 80)Khanzada Muhammad Abdul Haq Khan Khattak & Co. v WAPDA (1991 SCMR 1436)Jameel Ahmed v Saifuddin (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 501)---Quote:A consortium, of which the petitioner was a member, submitted its bid for a cellular license which was accepted by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The contract between the consortium and PTA thus stood concluded. Sub-clauses (k) and (n) of clause 9 and sub-clause (a) of clause 10 of the contract/the memorandum clearly stipulate that the earnest money will be forfeited if the requisite payments are not made. The Consortium having failed to fulfill their contractual obligations entitled PTA to forfeit the earnest amount.

Summary: In a writ petition u/a 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a petitioner is legally bound to establish his case from documents annexed therein. KP Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2012 & rules made there under, all procurement shall be conducted in a manner which promotes transparency, fairness with a sense of accountability.

Summary: The case originated from a tender issued by the government for the supply of jute bags for wheat storage during the 2005-06 season. The appellant had submitted a tender at a certain price per bag. The government pointed out a deficiency in the tender related to a "Price Reasonability Certificate," which the appellant subsequently provided. The appellant's tender was accepted, and a formal agreement was executed. However, it was later discovered that the appellant had sold the same bags to another entity at a lower price. As a result, the government reduced the payment to the appellant.The appellant challenged this reduction through a constitutional petition, arguing that the reduction was illegal and unjustified since the Price Reasonability Certificate had not been in effect at the time of the sale to the other entity.The appellant contended that the judgment was unsustainable because the government had admitted the disputed nature of Note-1, which the judgment had excluded from consideration. The appellant further argued that the Certificate provided by them did not have a retrospective effect, and the judgment did not appropriately consider this aspect of the case.The Court heard arguments from both sides and examined the record. It found that the Certificate provided by the appellant was a mandatory condition for the tender and had not been in effect until it was provided. Therefore, the appellant could not claim that its effect should retroactively apply. Additionally, the Court referred to a previous Supreme Court decision on a similar matter, which upheld the government's action in reducing the payment to the supplier. Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

Summary: [Public Procurement matters (Public Notice/Bidding process), Tender (Financial health of petitioner), Tender (Locus standi of petitioner)] Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Public procurement---Rejection of bid---Natural justice---Vested right---Scope---Petitioner impugned rejection of its bid by the procuring authority onground, inter alia, that petitioner had been declared the lowest bidder, and therefore a vested rightaccrued to the petitioner---Validity---Mere acceptance of the lowest bid would not constitute aconcluded contract, therefore, principle of natural justice would not be attracted in such a case, inabsence of any vested right of the petitioner---Bid of petitioner had not been confirmed finallyand contract therefore, could not be said to be completed---Constitutional petition was dismissed,in circumstances.Messrs Ittehad Cargo Service and 2 others v. Messrs Syed Tasneem Hussain Naqvi andothers PLD 2001 SC 116 and Babu Pervez v. Settlement Commissioner, Multan and BahawalpurDivisions Multan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 337 rel.Masoom Khan Kakar for Petitioner.

Summary: Public Procurement matters (Public Notice/Bidding process)---Rule 31,37, 39, 42 and 43 of Sindh Public Procurement Rules (SPPR) 2010, Section 37 AND 282-A of State Bank of Pakistan Act 1956 relating to Scheduled Bank and Non- Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and provision of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

Summary: The dispute arose when the government of Punjab invited bids for the procurement of drugs, including "Injection Pegylated Interferon 180 mcg Alpha2a/120mcg Alpha 2b," a medication used for Hepatitis C treatment. Getz's Unipeg had not been certified by these laboratories and did not meet the bidding criteria. Alfalah, an authorized distributor of Getz, filed a lawsuit challenging the bidding documents' clause. The trial court temporarily suspended the clause. However, when the government reissued the tender with prequalification requirements, Getz applied for prequalification but was later rejected. They filed a grievance application, which was dismissed. The current writ petition challenges this decision. The case primarily revolved around whether the bidding document requirements violated the Federal standards set out in the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (DRAP Act). The court analyzed the DRAP Act and found that it closely followed the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for the licensing of biosimilar drugs. Getz's Unipeg had received conditional registration but was yet to meet the bio-similarity standards. Therefore, the court determined that the bidding document requirements aligning with the DRAP Act did not violate the law. Additionally, the court found that Alfalah was not a proper party in this case, as it did not participate in the second tender process. Getz's attempt to involve Alfalah in the proceedings due to previous stay orders granted by a civil court was not sufficient. Overall, the court upheld the legality of the bidding document requirements and dismissed the petition. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to international standards for biosimilar drugs and the authority of government bodies to set procurement criteria for public health reasons.

Summary: Rule 47,48 Procurement Rules, 2014Article, 4, 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Giving lowest bid would not confer absolute right for award of contract.

Summary: Contract Law, Order for blacklist set-aside---The petitioner, a construction company, had entered into a contract with respondent No.2 for a construction and maintenance project. Due to project delays, the contract was rescinded, and the petitioner filed a suit, alleging that respondent No.2 had breached the contract by not releasing mobilization advance. During the legal proceedings, the petitioner was blacklisted by respondent No.2. The petitioner argued that the blacklisting order lacked a prescribed mechanism and procedure under the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009 (PPRA, 2009) and that it had not consistently failed to provide satisfactory performance in previous contracts. The petitioner contended that its blacklisting was unjust, as it had not been determined by a competent court whether it was in breach of the contract. The court found that PPRA, 2009 required a specified mechanism and manner for blacklisting suppliers and contractors, which had not been provided by respondent No.2. The court also concluded that the order was arbitrary because it applied PPRA, 2014 to the petitioner's case instead of the relevant PPRA, 2009, and it had been issued without a well-reasoned decision. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and set aside the blacklisting order. However, the judgment emphasized that this decision did not prevent the respondents from implementing a fair and transparent mechanism and manner for blacklisting under the procurement rules in the future.