The Procurement Case should be filed in High Court in which Jurisdiction the Procurement took place --- Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Dismisses Procurement Challenge Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
Islamabad 13-02-2025: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has dismissed a petition challenging the pre-qualification process for a livestock procurement scheme, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction and vague relief sought.
The case, Kakakhail Traders Vs. Province of Punjab & Others (WP No. 3661 of 2024), along with connected Petitions [W.P. Nos. 3851 and 3852 of 2024], questioned the legality of the pre-qualification criteria and evaluation process in a Rs. 950.58 million public procurement scheme under the Annual Development Program (ADP) for Livestock Asset Transfer to Rural Women in South Punjab (2024-2025).
The Petitioners argued that they were unlawfully disqualified from bidding after the evaluation criteria were altered via corrigendum, allegedly to favor other Traders the only two firms that met the 70% pre-qualification threshold. They contended that the process violated Rules 14 and 16(8)(c) of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, which mandate fairness and transparency in public procurement.
The Petition sought cancellation of the pre-qualification process, a halt to financial bid openings, and a fresh procurement process in compliance with Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules.
Advocate General Punjab, representing the Provincial Government, opposed the petitions on grounds that the petitioners failed to exhaust alternate remedies. He pointed out that other disqualified bidders had filed grievances before the Grievance Redressal Committee and Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority, which had rejected their claims, making the petition premature and legally untenable.
Counsel for other Traders, further argued that since the financial and technical bids had already been opened, the Petitioners could not challenge a completed bidding process.
Reliance was placed on the Lahore High Court ruling in M/s BIO-LABS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. Province of Punjab & Others (PLD 2020 Lahore 565), which upheld non-intervention in procurement disputes unless there were clear violations.
Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan held that the Rawalpindi Bench could not entertain the case, as the entire procurement process including bidding, evaluation, grievance resolution, and contract award took place in Bahawalpur, South Punjab.
Citing Article 198 of the Constitution and Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981, the Court ruled that the petition should have been filed in the Bahawalpur Bench.
Reliance was placed on:
- Government of Sindh Vs. Nizakat Ali (2011 SCMR 592): Courts must first determine jurisdiction before proceeding.
- Havaldar (Retd.) Chiragh Din Babar Vs. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 2009 Lahore 622): Petitions must be filed at the correct Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
The Court also criticized the vague and ambiguous relief sought, stating that under Article 199(1)(1A) of the Constitution, introduced through the 26th Constitutional Amendment (2024), the Lahore High Court cannot issue directives beyond the contents of a petition.
Citing N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Muhammad Arif (2011 SCMR 848), the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction applies only when a clear legal right is demonstrated.
The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that:
- The Rawalpindi Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction.
- The petition was vague and failed to establish a justiciable claim.
The Petitioners were advised to seek redress through the appropriate legal forum in Bahawalpur, rather than bypassing statutory procedures.
This ruling reinforces strict jurisdictional boundaries in public procurement disputes and reaffirms that procurement grievances must be resolved within the prescribed legal framework before invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Powered by Froala Editor
