Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SAIF ENTERPRISES vs PROVINCE OF SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SAIF ENTERPRISES VS PROVINCE OF SINDH art. 199---Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 (Revised 2013)---Rr. 31 & 32---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Procurement process---availability and availing of statutory remedies---Parallel proceedings before High Court---Legality---Judicial review---Scope---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.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SAIF ENTERPRISES vs PROVINCE OF SINDH art — 2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC