SHC dismisses plea against rehabilitation of flood-affected schools tender process

The Sindh High Court has dismissed a petition against the tender process for awarding contracts for rehabilitating flood-affected schools as not maintainable.

Mohammad Amin Brohi and others had challenged the tender process issued on October 6, 2024 to resurrect schools all over the province that had been decimated by the catastrophic floods of 2022.

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the government has initiated the process to award contracts to restore flood-affected schools, but it has devised criteria under which contractors working on small-scale businesses cannot participate.

Their counsel said small-scale business contractors can participate in the process if separate schools’ rehabilitation tenders are awarded. He questioned transparency in the process of awarding contracts, as international bidders are not included in the project.

A high court division bench headed by Justice Agha Faisal observed that the petitioners, admittedly not having participated in the said tender process, filed these petitions challenging the NIT and obtained ad interim orders rendering the entire process of reconstruction at naught.

The court observed that the petitioners’ counsel were asked to identify any infirmity in the terms and conditions of the NIT and they responded that there was none. The court observed that it was the petitioners’ case that packaging of the projects thereunder has been done unlawfully and the NIT offends rules 12, 15, 21(b) and 44 of the SPPRA Rules.

The respondent’s counsel insisted that the petitioners are devoid of any locus standi, as they never participated in the tender process. They said that the entire case of the petitioners is rested on unsubstantiated conjectures and surmises and even otherwise disputed questions of facts are not amenable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

The court observed that admittedly the petitioners did not participate in the tender process. The court observed that the exercise of powers, as per Article 199 of the Constitution, was required to be undertaken upon application of an aggrieved person.

The SHC said that the petitioners’ counsel has been unable to qualify the petitioners within the definition of an aggrieved person and the petitioners have articulated no cavil to the terms and conditions of the NIT, clearly stated therein.

It also observed that notwithstanding the same, interpretation of tables, constituent of packages proposed, is made prima facie inconsistent with the plain meaning thereof in an effort to defeat the NIT.

The high court observed that irrespective of the veracity thereof, petitioner counsel was also confronted with the question of how the determination sought could be undertaken without delving in to the realm of disputed factual controversies requiring inquiry however counsel remained unable to assist on the said count. The high court said that no case has been set forth before it to merit the invocation of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court and dismissed the petitions.