INDUS VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED and others vs PAKISTAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) by the High Court. The petitioners, a construction company, had challenged the respondent authorities' decision to award a contract to a selected party, effectively excluding the petitioners from the tender process. While the High Court's Single Judge and the subsequent I.C.A. Bench dismissed the petition on the grounds that the specific contract proceedings had already concluded, the petitioners contended that their challenge extended beyond the individual contract to the broader authority of the respondents to exclude them from the competitive bidding process entirely. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the writ petition and the arguments presented below indeed raised broader issues regarding the legality of the tender process and the exclusion of the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the I.C.A. Bench erred by failing to address the merits of the petitioners' substantive legal arguments regarding the tender process, rather than dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of the completed contract.
- Should an Intra-Court Appeal Bench examine the merits of a petition challenging the legality of a tender process even if the specific contract in question has already been awarded?
- Does a challenge to the authority of a respondent to exclude a party from a tender process survive the completion of the specific contract proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner's I.C.A. The petitioners had, in the context of grant of contract, challenged the power of the respondent authorities to grant the same to a selected party. In other words, the petitioners' ouster, from the main contest through tenders, was challenged.
2. ' A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The learned I.C.A. Bench dismissed the appeal also on the ground that the previous contract proceedings having been completed, the petitioners would be entitled to challenge similar future threatened action. Accordingly, the I.C.A. Was dismissed.
3. ' The learned counsel has contended that the contract mentioned in the writ petition was not the only dispute raised by the petitioners. They had also challenged the authority to award a contract by ousting the petitioners from the contest through tenders.
4. A perusal of the writ petition tiled in the High Court and trend of the arguments noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge support the learned counsel. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal so as to examine whether the I.C.A. Bench should not have resolved the controversy by examining the merits of the main pleas raised by the petitioners.
5. ' Security Rs,10,000.
6. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to add all necessary documents.
7. ' Leave to .