Procurement process

2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 (Revised 2013)Rr. 31 & 32Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeProcurement processAvailability and availing of statutory remediesParallel proceedings before High CourtLegalityJudicial reviewScope

Tender of petitioner being Government contractor was accepted along with 03 others contractors with the percentage of 90 and 10 respectively, thus, being aggrieved by such percentage he alleged anomalies in recruitment process and filed a complaint before the Complaint Redressal Committee (CRC) and upon its rejection, he preferred an appeal before Review Committee, and without waiting for its final outcome he filed first constitutional petition and during pendency thereof, when the appeal was rejected, he filed second constitutional petition challenging rejection of his appeal

Held:

Petitioner filed appeal under R. 32 of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, (Rules) before Review Committee and instead of waiting for the result of appeal he adopted parallel proceedings by filing petition before High Court, which practice on the part of petitioner was not be appreciated at all

Petitioner by virtue of filing petition attempted to circumvent the proceedings pending before statutory authority

Equitable writ jurisdiction is available when remedy provided under statutory provisions is exhausted and no other forum exists to challenge orders passed by the statutory authority

Parallel challenge to an order by way of appeal before a statutory forum under the relevant provisions of law and filing of constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution against the same cause are strictly impermissible

Non-supply of documents relating to technical proposals would not render the procurement process nullity, which otherwise was carried in accordance with law

Petitioner had not placed on record any application submitted by him to procuring agency for supply of documents relating to technical evaluation of other companies, thus, his objection was found to be an afterthought effort to pressurize procuring agency for obtaining desired results

Access to information is a guaranteed fundamental right of individuals; subject to law, a citizen cannot be denied access to public documents

Contention of the petitioner that grievances agitated by him before CRC and Review Committee were not properly addressed lost force as memo. of complaint and appeal of the petitioner did not contain any allegation of substantial nature calling for interference, rather the same were vague, bald in nature and without any substantial material, thus, were rightly discarded by the CRC and the Review Committee

Petitioner was granted ample opportunity to prove allegations of malpractices, corruption and favortism in the procurement process but he failed to do so

Legislature in order to place check on performance of procuring agency enacted Sindh Public Procurement Act, 2009, and framed Rules of 2010 thereunder

Under the provisions of the said Act forums had been provided to address the issues relating to the procurement process which being technical work could best be dealt with by the said forum having services of experts of related fields

Given the crucial task of overseeing development works, maintaining self-accountability, discipline, integrity and effective check on executing agencies were essential

Courts of law play a balancing and critical role in ensuring that the discretionary powers exercised by the authority are balanced and commensurate with the objectives sought to be achieved

Judicial review places a check against the exercise of powers in an arbitrary way and beyond the bounds of law

Forums had acted within the parameters prescribed by the law; no actions in excess of authority or acts of arbitrariness were unearthed or even pinpointed by the petitioner in the procurement process

High Court refused to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLD 38 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Rr. 37 & 41Procurement processPre-bidding stageBid securityInsurance Bond/Guarantee of Insurance Company

Petitioner company was aggrieved of deposit of bid security in the form of Bank Guarantee and Deposit at Call and intended to furnish Insurance Bond/Guarantee of Insurance Company

Validity

Provision of R. 37 of Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014, prohibited discriminatory and difficult conditions for procurement while R. 41 of Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014, provided procedure for competitive bidding

For procurement of projects in question, only three contractors/firms (including petitioner) had pre-qualified

If petitioner company failed to submit Bid Security with bids in shape of Bank Guarantee or Deposit at Call and if petitioner company was not permitted to furnish Insurance Bond/Guarantee of an Insurance Company of AA Rating in required sums as Bid Security with its bids for procurement of two projects, the petitioner company would be deprived of submitting its bids/financial proposal for two projects and in such circumstances only two prequalified bidders would be able to submit their bids/financial proposals for procurement of the two projects which could not be termed as competitive bidding and would be violative of provisions of Rr. 37 & 41 of Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014

High Court permitted petitioner company for the sake of competitive bidding for two projects to furnish Bid Security in the shape of Guarantee/Insurance Bond of AA Rating Insurance Company of Pakistan

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2020 CLD 151 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 441Pubic Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr. 31 & 36Procurement processAwarding of contractObjectionBid/pre-qualification documentsSubmission after due datePrinciples of natural justiceApplicabilityScope

Petitioner participated in a tender bidding process and sought to scrap procurement process and invite fresh tenders on grounds that successful bidder submitted pre-qualification documents after due date and decision of Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) was violative of principles of natural justice

Validity

Where a procuring agency required bids or pre-qualification documents to be submitted within a stipulated deadline, a bidder could not be permitted to satisfy essential requirements of tender by supplementing its bid or pre-qualification documents along with documents filed after deadline

If principles of natural justice were violated in respect of any decision, it was indeed, immaterial whether same decision would have been arrived at in absence of departure from essential principles of natural justice

Decision taken in violation of principles of natural justice must be declared to be no decision and same was void

Decision of Grievance Redressal Committee taken in violation of principles of natural justice were void

Fact that decision of Grievance Redressal Committee was not challenged by petitioner would not obviate fact that it was void

High Court declared that pre-qualification of respondent company was in violation of terms and conditions of pre-qualification documents consequently, purchase order awarded to respondent was unlawful and of no legal consequences

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2020 MLD 379 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 441Pubic Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr. 31 & 36Procurement processAwarding of contractObjectionBid/pre-qualification documentsSubmission after due datePrinciples of natural justiceApplicabilityScope

Petitioner participated in a tender bidding process and sought to scrap procurement process and invite fresh tenders on grounds that successful bidder submitted pre-qualification documents after due date and decision of Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) was violative of principles of natural justice

Validity

Where a procuring agency required bids or pre-qualification documents to be submitted within a stipulated deadline, a bidder could not be permitted to satisfy essential requirements of tender by supplementing its bid or pre-qualification documents along with documents filed after deadline

If principles of natural justice were violated in respect of any decision, it was indeed, immaterial whether same decision would have been arrived at in absence of departure from essential principles of natural justice

Decision taken in violation of principles of natural justice must be declared to be no decision and same was void

Decision of Grievance Redressal Committee taken in violation of principles of natural justice were void

Fact that decision of Grievance Redressal Committee was not challenged by petitioner would not obviate fact that it was void

High Court declared that pre-qualification of respondent company was in violation of terms and conditions of pre-qualification documents consequently, purchase order awarded to respondent was unlawful and of no legal consequences

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 412 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R. 23Contract for 'In-Flight Catering Services' awarded by the National Airline ("Airline")Procurement processFiling of tender scheduleRequirements

Objection with regard to the non-compliance of Punjab Public Procurement Rules, 2004 was on the basis of the tender schedule which formed part of the bidding documents and which ought to have been filled properly so as to enable the evaluation of the bid submitted by the respondent and the consequent compilation of the evaluation report

Final report prepared by the Airline had not properly filled in the tender schedule and the respondent had filled in the schedule properly. along with fulfilling other requirements of the tender

Objection was dismissed accordingly.