Public procurement of goods not meant to be hidden behind a cloak of invisibility: SHC

The Sindh High Court has observed that public procurement is not meant to be hidden behind a cloak of invisibility.

Dismissing petitions against the process of procurement tenders for supplying dietary articles/cooked food to six out of 22 prison facilities in Sindh, a high court division bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana directed that the complaint redressal committee decide the relevant complaint after providing an opportunity of hearing of relevant parties and decide the same within three weeks.

The court observed that inaction of CRC to call two other participating bidders for hearing constituted a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution.

It said superior courts have pointed out that merely calculating the cost of three meals per prisoner falls short of ensuring a nutritious diet that adequately meets inmates' dietary needs. The court observed that if a contractor strays from the dietary plan or serves substandard food, their contract can be justly cancelled.

The SHC said that failing to provide sufficient nutrition in every meal not only impacts the health of the prisoners but also goes against the compassionate principles of Islam, which emphasises the importance of caring for the well-being of all individuals.

It observed that there is no doubt that the bids concerning the supply of cooked food to the inmates at the six prisons locations in the province involve a public interest.

If there is any violation of a fundamental right covered under Article 10-A by the state and its instrumentalities at any stage of the public procurement, then an aggrieved person may have a cause to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the constitution court to seek judicial review of that specific event in the procurement process, it said.

The high court also observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the particular event which has caused the court to consider intervention is the non-providing opportunity of hearing to two bidders before the CRC.

The court observed that it would have been reasonable for the CRC to provide an opportunity of hearing to the two bidders who had been recommended as having the most advantageous bid within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(x) of SPPR, 2010.