| Case ID |
0c85e87f-e819-4e26-9ea0-601dd98eb71d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Constitutional Petition No. 1673 of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 14, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 07, 1999 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, under the esteemed leadership of Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Justice Ghulam Rabbani, rendered a pivotal decision on September 14, 1999, in Constitutional Petition No. 1673 of 1998. Following a comprehensive hearing initiated on April 7, 1999, the court meticulously examined the allegations presented by petitioner OWAISCO against the Federation of Pakistan and other respondents, including Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Pvt.) Limited and SICPA Ink Pakistan (Pvt.l Limited). Utilizing the robust framework of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), the court conducted an in-depth judicial review into the fairness and legality of the contract awards in question. The judgment underscored the judiciary's unwavering commitment to ensuring transparency, accountability, and justice within governmental procurement processes. By identifying and addressing the arbitrary and unfair practices employed by state entities in awarding contracts, the court emphasized the critical role of judicial oversight in curbing corruption and safeguarding public interests. The decision mandated the respondents to adhere to the recommendations set forth in the Special Audit Report of the Auditor-General of Pakistan, thereby reinforcing the principles of lawful governance and equitable treatment in contract allocations. This landmark ruling not only rectified the immediate grievances of the petitioner but also set a precedent for future cases, highlighting the judiciary's essential function in upholding constitutional integrity and promoting ethical standards in public administration. |
| Summary |
The Sindh High Court's decisive judgment in Constitutional Petition No. 1673 of 1998 marks a significant milestone in Pakistan's legal landscape, particularly concerning judicial oversight of governmental contract awards. Decided on September 14, 1999, with hearings commencing on April 7, 1999, the case was helmed by Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Justice Ghulam Rabbani. The petitioner, OWAISCO, engaged in a legal battle against the Federation of Pakistan, Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, and SICPA Ink Pakistan (Pvt.l Limited), alleging unfair and arbitrary practices in the awarding of contracts. At the heart of the dispute was the claim that respondent No.2, Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, unlawfully awarded significant purchase orders to respondent No.3, SICPA Ink Pakistan, despite OWAISCO submitting the lowest and most competitive bids. This allegation was further compounded by the assertion of collusion between the respondents, leading to substantial financial losses for the state.
The court's examination under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) was thorough, focusing on the principles of fairness, neutrality, and legality in public procurement. The Special Audit Report by the Auditor-General of Pakistan played a crucial role in substantiating the petitioner's claims, revealing irrefutable evidence of financial discrepancies, overcharging, and favoritism in contract awards. Key judicial precedents were cited, reinforcing the court's stance on preventing arbitrary state actions and ensuring equitable treatment of all bidders in government contracts.
Respondent No.2 and No.3 defended their positions by referencing a Joint Venture Agreement (J.V.A.), asserting that their actions were in line with existing contractual obligations. However, the court found that the J.V.A. lacked transparency, bypassed public advertisement protocols, and was primarily driven by private gains rather than public interest. The Special Audit Report highlighted significant malpractices, including over-investments, exploitation of contractual loopholes for unjustified price escalations, and management malfeasance, which collectively underscored systemic corruption within the procurement processes.
In its ruling, the Sindh High Court emphasized the judiciary's pivotal role in ensuring governmental accountability and combating corruption. By directing the respondents to implement the recommendations of the Special Audit Report, the court not only addressed the immediate grievances of the petitioner but also reinforced the importance of transparency and ethical standards in public procurement. This decision serves as a precedent for future judicial interventions in similar cases, showcasing the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional mandates and safeguarding public resources against unethical and arbitrary state actions.
Furthermore, the case underscored the necessity of robust legal frameworks and vigilant judicial oversight in maintaining the integrity of governmental operations. The court's judgment highlighted the critical balance between contractual obligations and constitutional rights, ensuring that even in matters of administrative discretion, the principles of fairness and legality remain paramount. This landmark decision has profound implications for future cases involving allegations of corruption, arbitrary contract awards, and the misuse of discretionary powers by state functionaries.
The involvement of prominent legal representatives, including Khalid Javed Khan for the petitioner and M. L. Shahani and Salman Talibuddin for the respondents, underscored the case's complexity and the high stakes involved. Their arguments revolved around the legality of contractual obligations versus constitutional rights, the validity of the J.V.A., and the ethical ramifications of the procurement practices in question.
In conclusion, the Sindh High Court's judgment in Constitutional Petition No. 1673 of 1998 exemplifies the judiciary's essential function in promoting transparency, accountability, and justice within governmental operations. By addressing and rectifying the arbitrary and unfair practices in contract awards, the court has set a robust legal precedent, encouraging ethical governance and reinforcing the constitutional safeguards against corruption and misuse of power. This case not only resolved the specific dispute between OWAISCO and the respondents but also contributed to the broader discourse on judicial accountability and the rule of law in Pakistan's public sector, ensuring that future governmental actions align with the highest standards of integrity and fairness. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Federation of Pakistan,
Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Pvt.) Limited,
Auditor-General of Pakistan,
OWAISCO,
SICPA Ink Pakistan (Pvt.l Limited),
M/s. Akzo Nobel,
De La Rue
|
| Judges |
Nazim Hussain Siddiqui,
Ghulam Rabbani
|
| Lawyers |
Khalid Javed Khan,
M. L. Shahani,
Salman Talibuddin
|
| Petitioners |
OWAISCO
|
| Respondents |
Federation of Pakistan,
Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Pvt.) Limited,
SICPA Ink Pakistan (Pvt.l Limited)
|
| Citations |
1999 SLD 1268,
1999 PLD 472
|
| Other Citations |
Messrs Pacific Multinational (Pvt.) Limited v. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Police Headquarters and 2 others PLD 1992 Kar. 283,
Shaukat Ali v. Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 1995 MLD 123,
Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others 1997 SCMR 641,
Messrs Arif Builders and Developers v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar. 627,
Messrs Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Limited v. Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited and others 1998 CLC 1890,
Qallat Press v. The Secretary, Education Department. Government of Balochistan and 3 others 1998 CLC 833,
PLD 1991 SC 14
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
199
|