Pakistan Case Law
2003 YLR 1442

BBJ PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 YLR 1442
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 17111 of 2002
Date2002-09-19
Judge(s)Jawwad S. Khawaja
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This constitutional petition was filed by a steel pipe manufacturing company seeking a declaration to set aside the award of a supply contract by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited to a competitor, and to restrain the issuance of the corresponding purchase order. The petitioner argued that it was capable of manufacturing the required pipes and had applied for pre-qualification, which was still pending. The High Court observed that the tender was floated in May 2002 with bids closing in June 2002, whereas the petitioner approached the court only after the entire procurement process was completed and the purchase order was about to be issued. The court held that the commercial operations and business affairs of a public utility company cannot be stymied by a belated petition. Finding no equities in favor of the petitioner, the court ruled that the petition was barred by laches and dismissed it in limine.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a party challenge the award of a commercial contract by a public utility if they failed to seek timely pre-qualification before the opening of bids?
  • Whether a writ petition challenging a tender process is maintainable if it is filed after the procurement process is complete and is thus hit by laches?
  • Can the commercial operations of a public utility company be restrained or stymied by a belated petition where no equities lie in favor of the petitioner?
tenderpre-qualificationlachescommercial contractwrit petitiondismissal in limine

ORDER

The petitioner is a company, which manufactures steel pipes. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited respondent No.1 had invited tenders on 4-5-2002 for supply to it of 75000 tons of steel pipe of 8" diameter. Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Respondent No.2 participated in the tender and has been awarded a contract for the aforesaid supply. A purchase order is due to be issued to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. By respondent No. 1.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also capable of manufacturing the requisite pipe and has applied for pre-qualification with respondent No. 1. This may be so. However, the admitted position is that the petitioner has not as yet been pre-qualified by respondent No. 1.

3. This petition, inter alia, seeks a declaration to the effect that the award of the above-referred tender by respondent No. 1 to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Is illegal with the further prayer that the award of contract to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Be set aside.

4. It is important to note that the tender was floated as far back as 4-5-2002. The last date for submitting bids was 30-6-2002. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved of any delay by respondent No.1 in processing its application for pre-qualification, it ought to have approached the Court in May-June this year, before the opening of bids.

5. Upon a question as to why the petitioner did not do so, learned counsel was not able to offer any satisfactory explanation. He only stated that the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 and entered into correspondence with it. Learned counsel also stated that in meetings with respondent No. 1, the petitioner was given some indication that it would be considered for future contracts.

6. Now that the respondent No. 1 has completed the entire process for procurement of the requisite supply and as about to issue a purchase order, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to seek cancellation of the award of contract and to restrain issuance of a purchaser order to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.

7. The commercial operations and business affairs of the -respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to be stymied by this belated petition. I find .No equities in favour of the petitioner and also hold that in view of the circumstances narrated above, this petition is hit by laches. As a consequence, it is dismissed in limine.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.