MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRONTIER HIGHWAY AUTHORITY vs BROTHERS CONSTRUCTIONS AND BUILDERS (BCB) R

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

MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRONTIER HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTIONS AND BUILDERS (BCB) R.25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.175F(c)---Public procurement---Tender process---Additional security, demand of---Demand based on undisclosed engineer's estimate---Legality---Transparency and fairness---Change in essential terms after advertisement---Effect---Advertisement, scope and significance of---Brief facts were that the petitioners invited tenders in which the respondent emerged successful and deposited earnest money on the advertised estimated cost; later, the petitioners demanded 8% additional security on the basis of an undisclosed engineer's estimate, and upon refusal, rejected the bid, forfeited the earnest money, and debarred the respondent for six months; the respondent challenged this action through a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court---The issue before the Federal Constitutional Court was "whether additional security could lawfully be imposed on the basis of a benchmark not disclosed in the tender notice?"---Held: Petitioner's approach of computingthe 2% earnest money on the basis of the estimated cost expresslydisclosed in the advertisement, while switching to an undisclosedengineer estimate later on, was legally untenable, as it offended therequirements of transparency, consistency, and equal treatment inpublic procurement---Any midstreamdeparture from the stipulated tender terms, without prior public notice,and in the absence of legal/cogent justification, was inherently arbitrary,and undermined the principle of equal opportunity among bidders---Theintroduction of an additional security requirement by reference to abenchmark not disclosed in the advertisement, appeared to be patentlyarbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of transparency andfairness in the facts and circumstances of the case---No interference was required in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court---Leave was refused and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

MANAGING DIRECTOR, FRONTIER HIGHWAY AUTHORITY vs BROTHERS CONSTRUCTIONS AND BUILDERS (BCB) R — 2026 PLD 94 FEDERAL-CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD