AHMAD RAZA vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, LAHORE and another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an Intra Court Appeal regarding the cancellation of a supply contract. The petitioner, a medicine supplier, challenged the District Council's decision to cancel a contract for the supply of medicines after it was discovered that the procurement process was tainted by fraud and collusion. Specifically, the Council found that a dual indent system was used to restrict competition, favoring the petitioner and others. The core legal question was whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction could be invoked to enforce a contractual liability arising from a fraudulent procurement process. The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction, being equitable in nature, cannot be utilized to facilitate injustice or to protect ill-gotten gains derived from fraud. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, ruling that the petitioner could not benefit from their own fraudulent conduct, and emphasized that public funds must be protected from such manipulation. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Can contractual liability be enforced through the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Is the writ jurisdiction available to a party seeking to benefit from their own fraud?
- Does the equitable nature of writ jurisdiction preclude its use for gaining ill-gotten wealth?
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 18.8.1999 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby, ICA No. 673/99 against the dismissal of the writ petitioner tiled by petition was dismissed.
2. The Chairman District Council Lahore (respondent No. 1 herein) through the advertisement in the newspaper desired to purchase certain medicines. The petitioner furnished the requisite quotations on 3.2.1999 and accordingly supplied different medicines. Subsequently, it transpired that in collusion with the officers of Zila Council and certain firms including the petitioner had fraudulently succeeded to secure the supply of medicines. It further came to light that dual indent was issued one containing a list of 78 items of medicines and the other for 91 items of medicines.
The indent qua 78 medicines was circulated amongst all competitors, whereas, tender for 91 medicines was issued only to four firms including the petitioner (Medwin). In this view of the matter, a fair competition had not taken place, therefore, the contract was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to lift the medicines supplied by him. It further revealed that in response to fresh tender firms had offered to supply medicines on a much lower price as compared to the prices mentioned by the petitioner. Zila Council Lahore held an inquiry and the fraud were discovered.
Against the cancellation of his contract, petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, and the Intra Court Appeal also met with the same fate in terms of order impugned herein. Even otherwise contractual liability cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction.
3. After careful consideration of the facts enumerated above, we would not allow the petitioner to take advantage of hid own fraud and the public money in such like manner cannot be allowed to be squandered. The writ jurisdiction is equitable in nature and cannot be pressed in service in aid of injustice for gaining ill-gotten wealth through fraud. Hence, this petition merits dismissal. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly.