MLD 2020

2020 PLP 1324 (MLD)

GILGIT-BALTISTAN BUSINESS GROUP (REGISTERED PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL) through M.D. and 4 others — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL PROGRAMME DIRECTOR 10 BILLION TREE TSUNAMI PROGRAMME/PROJECT DIRECTOR GREEN PAKISTAN PROGRAMME GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Decided Date
2020-February-6
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP 1324 (MLD)
Forum / Court Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties GILGIT-BALTISTAN BUSINESS GROUP (REGISTERED PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL) through M.D. and 4 others — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL PROGRAMME DIRECTOR 10 BILLION TREE TSUNAMI PROGRAMME/PROJECT DIRECTOR GREEN PAKISTAN PROGRAMME GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1324 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1324 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1324 (MLD) (GILGIT-BALTISTAN BUSINESS GROUP (REGISTERED PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL) through M.D. and 4 others — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL PROGRAMME DIRECTOR 10 BILLION TREE TSUNAMI PROGRAMME/PROJECT DIRECTOR GREEN PAKISTAN PROGRAMME GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009

Representation

  • Ehsan Ali for Petitioners.
  • Assistant Advocate General along with Raja Shakeel Ahmad for Respondents.
  • 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General and the associated counsel, Raja Shakeel Ahmed Advocate, have controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Plant Procurement Tender Processing Committee, comprising of senior most technical officers of Gilgit-Baltistan Forest and Wildlife Department, has formulated a well-conceived technical, financial bid documents fulfilling all codal formalities and procurement rules of PPRA 2004. The learned Assistant Advocate General and the associated counsel have further argued that an SOP has been formulated for procurement of plants through constitution of an inspection and verification committee who will supervise the uprooting, loading and transportation process; hence, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with mala fide intention to sabotage the plantation program; thus, this writ petition of the petitioners may be dismissed.

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 71(2) & 86(2)

Writ petition

Administrative action/ arrangement

Interference

Scope

Single tender for procurement of plants and plantations

Contention of petitioners was that single consolidated tender was not feasible and authorities should have invited bids for the project at district level of each district

Validity

Authorities, after preparing bidding documents and fulfilling all codal formalities had invited sealed bids for supply of plants from registered firms

Procuring agency had the prerogative to make administrative arrangements and decision with regard to procurement of items

Court could not interfere in the administrative functions of the department

No Fundamental Right of petitioners had been infringed by the authorities to invoke writ jurisdiction of Chief Court

Authorities had allocated plants to be procured for each district

Chief Court, however, directed the authorities to submit quarterly progress report in the Court with regard to plantation and survival of plants in each district

Writ petition was dismissed, accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, read with enabling Articles of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition unlawful bidding process of aforementioned (PDSP) may be cancelled and respondents may be directed for bidding of said project in each and every district separately under the concerned forest officials at district level after fulfilling the prescribed criteria in the larger interest of justice."

2. Succinctly, facts forming background of this writ petition are that the Forest Department of Gilgit-Baltistan had received budget from Federal Government for procurement of plants and plantations under PSDP Project 10 Billion Trees Tsunami Program Phase-I upscalling of Green Pakistan Program (Revised) Revival of Forest Resources. Accordingly, the respondents invited sealed bids for the procurement/ supply of plants from financially stable registered firms having valid Federal Seed Certificate Registration at Gilgit-Baltistan level through tender notice and sealed bids were to be delivered to the office of Provincial Program Director 10 Billion Trees Tsunami Program Gilgit-Baltistan on or before 23rd January 2020. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition on the plea that tender process of plantation of 5 million plants under consolidated single tender through respondent No.1 is unlawful and based on mala fide and they have sought that tender process of aforesaid project must be in each and every district separately under the concerned District Forest Officer (DFO).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 have decided to float tender of aforesaid project through single consolidated tender at Gilgit headquarter which is not feasible as Gilgit-Baltistan is consisting of 10 districts, therefore, respondents may be directed to invite bids for the said project at district level of 10 districts of Gilgit-Baltistan.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General and the associated counsel, Raja Shakeel Ahmed Advocate, have controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Plant Procurement Tender Processing Committee, comprising of senior most technical officers of Gilgit-Baltistan Forest and Wildlife Department, has formulated a well-conceived technical, financial bid documents fulfilling all codal formalities and procurement rules of PPRA 2004. The learned Assistant Advocate General and the associated counsel have further argued that an SOP has been formulated for procurement of plants through constitution of an inspection and verification committee who will supervise the uprooting, loading and transportation process; hence, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with mala fide intention to sabotage the plantation program; thus, this writ petition of the petitioners may be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. From perusal of record, it transpires that under the project 10 Billion Trees Tsunami Program Phase-I, upscalling of Green Pakistan Program Revival of Forestry Resources Gilgit-Baltistan component, a total of 50 million plants are to be planted in Gilgit-Baltistan during next 4 years starting from STPL 2020. Accordingly, an allocation of Rs.635.5 million, for planting of 11.9 million numbers of plants, exists for the current financial year 2020. Therefore, the respondents after preparing bidding documents and fulfilling all codal formalities have invited sealed bids for the supply of plants from financially stable registered firms having valid Federal Seed Certificate Registration and the respondents have not violated any PPRA rules. The petitioners have taken sole ground in the petition that the tender of the aforesaid project should be bifurcated in 10 districts of Gilgit-Baltistan for the purpose of tendering and supply of plants to each district through concerned District Forest Officer (DFO). In this connection, it is observed that it is prerogative of the procuring agency to make administrative arrangements and decision regarding procurement of items/plants and court cannot interfere in the administrative functions/acts of the concerned department as the respondents have not violated the settled rules of procurements particularly PPRA Rules 2004. Furthermore, no any fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed by the respondents requiring to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the respondents have already allocated/reserved plants to be procured to each district of Gilgit-Baltistan as evident from district-wise details submitted by the respondents along with parawise comments in this Court.

7. Before parting with this judgment, the respondents are directed to submit quarterly progress report regarding plantation and survival of planted plants reach district in this Court through the Registrar of this Court who will place the same before the undersigned in my chamber.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition having no force is hereby dismissed. File. ZC/19/GB Petition dismissed.