2001 PLP 172 (MLD)

Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for Appellant. M. Tabbasum Aftab Aivi, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 arid

2. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 5th October, 2000. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑Planning and Development Department placed advertisement in national newspapers to proclaim intention of the Government to procure six items in bulk for implementation of more than eight hundred projects of roads, water supply and school buildings under Poverty Alleviation Programme. One of the items was G.I. Pipes. It was stated in the advertisement that only reputed manufacturers were invited to quota ex‑factory rates. The advertisement included a recital that Secretary of Planning and Development Department would have the right of rejecting or accepting any quotation. Three quotations were filed for supplying G.I. Pipes. The lowest quotation was that the Win Pipe Industry (Pvt.), but the Secretary mentioned above accepted the quotation filed by Pioneer Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Win Pipe filed a writ petition in the ‑ High Court to challenge the decision mentioned above. The writ petition has been dismissed. Win Pipe has filed this appeal by leave of Court.

2. The High Court has held that quotations could only be filed by reputed manufactures while Win Pipe was not a manufacturer but was only a supplier: The High Court has held on the other hand Pioneer was a manufacturer. On the basis of these findings the High Court reached the conclusion that the Secretary rightly declined to consider the quotation filed by Win Pipe.

3. In support of the appeal Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi vehemently submitted that the High Court fell in error in holding that Win Pipe was not a manufacturers. He submitted both Win Pipe and Pioneer were duly registered with the Public Works Department and the registration certificates issued by Public Works Department in favour of both the companies were identical. The record shows that the contention is correct, but it was pointed out by Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for the Pioneer, that registration with Public Works Department was not relevant for the purposes of the work in dispute because the work in dispute was undertaken by Planning and Development Department and not the Public Works Department. He submitted that in the quotation notice placed in the newspapers, it was not stated that manufacturers registered with Public Works Department were entitled to file quotations. He pointed out that quotations were invited from "reputed manufacturers". We find force in this contention. The phraseology of quotation notice clearly shows that the registration with the Public Works Department was not a relevant factor for filing quotation for the work in dispute. Therefore, if it is found that Win Pipe was not a manufacturer, our view is that Secretary Planning and Development had full authority to ignore the quotation filed by Win Pipe, the appellant before this Court.

4. The relevant documents form part of paper book and are undisputed. The record shows that initially the quotation filed by the appellant company was excluded from consideration. The appellant company represented to the Secretary that it was a manufacturer of G.I. Pipes and it was duly registered with the Public Works Department. Thereupon, the Secretary wrote an order on 29th June, 2000 that it had to be. verified whether Win Pipe was a manufacturer of G.I. Pipes or not. He constituted a committee consisting of Chief (Technical) of Planning and Development Department and an Executive Engineer of Public Health Department to verify the fact and file report on the following day. The said officers immediately proceeded to Rawalpindi and inspected the factory of appellant company in the evening and submitted the following report on the next day;‑ "Factory of Win Pipe Industry Islamabad is situated at Mandra on G.T. Road. The factory was inspected at 7.30 p.m. Work in the second shift was going on and pipes of eight inch dia were being manufactured. There is no galanising plant in the factory. On being asked, the Factory incharge inform that since there was no gas available in the industrial area Mandra it was not possible to install galvanising plant there. He stated that the galvanising work was being performed in Islamabad. The factory incharge requested the committee to inspect the galvanising plant in Islamabad. In order to verify the correctness of the statement made by the incharge the committee proceeded to Islamabad to inspect the galvanising plant. During inspection it transpired that the galvanising plant was installed within premises of Victory Pipe industry and that both Win Pipe Industry and Victory Pipe Industry were working under the same management. The report is submitted for perusal and further action."

5. That the report reproduced is the basis on which the quotation filed by Win Pipe, although lowest, was not included in the competition. According to the writ petition itself the appellant company is a private limited company and thus, is a legal person. As pointed out by Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the appellant company has its factory at Mandra but it has not galvanising unit. The galvanising work is carried out in Islamabad in the factory belonging to Victory Pipe. It is thus, clear that the appellant company does not have a complete manufacturing plant. In these circumstances the Secret of Planning and Development Department came to the conclusion that the appellant company was not a "reputed manufacturer". In exercise of writ jurisdiction it is not possible in law to substitute the opinion of the Secretary by the opinion of the Court. In fact the Secretary had the power to reject the quotation without assigning any reason which is a wide power in which interference is possible only in extraordinary circumstances showing arbitrariness or abuse of power. This Court was consistently taken the view that if the power to reject a tender or quotation is vested in the competent authority, the said authority should be able to show to the Court that the rejection was based on some ground. Secretary Planning and Development Department has shown to the Court the reason for the rejection of the quotation filed by the appellant. In our view the ground of rejection is neither arbitrary nor based on abuse of powers. Therefore, no case for interference of the High Court was made out. Therefore, finding no force in this appeal, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./103/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.