2016 PLP 415 (YLR)

AYESHA A. MALIK, J.

This Writ Petition decides upon the issues raised in W.Ps. Nos. 16398 and 31453 of 2012. The Petitioners in these petitions seek declaration that the contract awarded to National Institute Facilitation Technologies (NIFT) be declared as illegal.

2. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No.1 illegally entered into a contract with the Respondent No.10 for service of printing of roll number/award sheet and scanning OMR/OCR/ICR. Learned counsel argued that this contract should not have been executed and consequent to the execution of this contract large amount of money has been siphoned away by the private party.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Respondent No.10 raised the objection with the maintainability of the instant petitions. He argued that there was an independent contract between each of the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) and NIFT, such that there were eight contracts with eight different BISEs which cannot be interfered with by the Petitioners. Learned counsel argued that in any event the contracts have expired and as such the prayer in the instant petitions has become infructuous. Learned counsel argued that under the contract, NIFT was to complete the printing and scanning of sheets for the Intermediate Part-I and Part-II annual examination 2012 and for the 2013 examination. Since both the examinations have been conducted and the results have been declared, the contract is complete and concluded. He argued that under the circumstances the prayer of the Petitioners to have a concluded contract declared as illegal is not maintainable. Learned counsel further argued that the contracts with NIFT were to implement the automated system introduced by the Government for the purposes of the Intermediate Examination and its checking. The Petitioners do not detail the fraud or so called illegality but simply stress on the fact that lot of money is being paid to the Respondent NIFT for its services. Learned counsel argued that a new system has been put into place and the results of 2012 and 2013 examinations have been issued without any major problem. Therefore no grievance is made out. Learned counsel further argued that the Petitioners have no locus standi and as such no interest of the Petitioners have been infringed upon. In any event he argued that main W.P. No.8158/2012 was argued and it was demonstrated in that petition that the 2012 examination was conducted as per the recommendations of the Judicial Commission dated 7.12.2011 and no major issue has been raised when the result was announced. Subsequently the 2013 result was announced and again there was no major issue. Under the circumstances he argued that there is no merit in these cases because the work of NIFT has concluded and no grievance has been made out by the Petitioners.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.

5. The basic grievance of the Petitioners is against the contract awarded to the Respondent No.10, NIFT. A review of the contract shows that the same was issued for the purposes of Intermediate Examinations 2012 and 2013. Both the examinations have concluded and at present there is no contract subsisting between the Respondent No.10 and the Respondent BISEs. It is also noted that in W.P. No.31493/2013 is the Pakistan Social Justice Party, who have also not appended any document to show under what provision of law the said Federation has been formed and who the competent authority is for the purposes of authorization. Furthermore on the question of maintainability, the Petitioners have no locus standi as they are not aggrieved persons. No right or interest of the Petitioners is adversely affected in any manner and any grievance that the Petitioners may have pleaded for the purposes of public interest stands negated by the declaration of the 2012 and 2013 results. As such no issue has been brought to the notice of the Court to show that the issues with the 2011 result have been repeated at the same level in 2012 or 2013, notwithstanding the report of the Commission dated 07.12.2011 and the recommendations made thereto. No instance of any loss has been detailed or brought on record. The main grievance is that the respondent No.1 could not enter into any contract with the respondent No.10. However learned counsel for Respondent No.10 has shown that it had eight separate contracts with the Respondents Nos.2 to 9 and there was no contract with the Respondent No.1.

6. Therefore in view of the aforesaid, these petitions are dismissed. SL/P-39/L Petitions dismissed.