SHC vacates stay orders against procurement of 138 double cabin vehicles for ACs

The Sindh High Court on Friday dismissed a petition against the procurement of 138 heavy vehicles for assistant commissioners and vacated the interim stay order on the procurement of the vehicles.

Jamaat-e-Islami MPA Mohammad Farooq and others had challenged the procurement of 138 heavy vehicles at enormous government expenses. The high court had earlier suspended the provincial services department’s letter issued to the finance department with regard to the release of Rs1.991 billion for procuring 138 double cabin vehicles for assistant commissioners across the province.

The petitioner’s counsel, Usman Farooq, had submitted that an allocation of such huge funds for the procurement of heavy vehicles for assistant commissioners was unnecessary and arbitrary, and constituted a gross misuse of public funds.

He had submitted that public functionaries were entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding and managing the public exchequer transparently and efficiently, as mandated by the Constitution and the use of nearly Rs.2 billion from the provincial budget for the procurement of luxury vehicles for government officers, during a time of significant financial strain on the economy, amounted to a clear disregard for the public interest and fiduciary duties of the respondents.

The counsel had submitted that such an extravagant expenditure did not serve any public purpose and was, therefore, in violation of the basic principle enshrined in the Article 5(2) of the Constitution that obligated all the citizens, including public officials, to obey the law.

The SHC was told that the public funds were being diverted towards the purchase of luxury vehicles, a decision that provided no tangible benefit to the citizens, particularly those living in impoverished areas where public services were desperately needed.

The petitioner’s counsel had submitted that the provincial government’s fiscal responsibility must be guided by the pressing needs of its citizens, and the provision of essential services must be prioritised in the allocation of resources.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Agha Faisal had inquired the counsel to identify any law, rule and/or policy being offended by the impugned letter, and observed that the counsel remained unable to assist the court on this point.

The high court had observed that after perusal of the record, no law, rule and/or policy was annexed and in addition to a copy of the impugned letter, the only inclusions were a purported press report, devoid of any apparent annotation demonstrating the source thereof, and copy of a chapter, from an unidentified publication, regarding inflation.

To a court query about the maintainability of the petition, the counsel had submitted that the petition is maintainable as it related to public interest litigation.

The Sindh advocate general had submitted that the petitions were misconceived, devoid of merit, hence, and ought to be dismissed forthwith.

He had submitted that the petitions appeared to be motivated by private interest and publicity as the subject allocation was a constituent of the Finance Act.

He had submitted that since the Finance Act was already in force, therefore, no case was made out to impugn the implementation of a constituent thereof.

He had submitted that this was a matter of budgetary allocation/policy and no nexus of the petitioners therewith and/or infringement of any right of the petitioners thereby had been demonstrated.

The SHC was told that transportation/conveyance was an integral requisite for the functioning of government and the last pari materia procurement took place in 2010/2012.

The advocate general had submitted that irrespective of the fact that the last such acquisition was 15 years ago, the efficient operational life of such vehicles was about 200,000 kilometres, and the said vehicles had been operated for more than four times of the said quantum.

He had said that the restraint imposed through interim orders amounted to final relief at the interim stage without even addressing the maintainability and merit of the claim.

The SHC observed that the Article 199 of the Constitution contemplated the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court and the said discretion may be exercised upon invocation by an aggrieved person and in the absence of an adequate remedy.

The high court observed that the petitioners’ counsel failed to make any case before the court to qualify the petitioners within the definition of an aggrieved person.

The SHC observed that even otherwise, the allegations levelled, albeit prima facie bald and unsubstantiated, could not be entertained in any event as adjudication of disputed questions of fact, requiring detailed inquiry, appreciation of evidence etc., was unmerited in writ jurisdiction.

The judges observed that they had been assisted with no reason to disagree with the assertion of the advocate general that the present petitions appeared to be an attempt to seek publicity, without any justifiable cause of action.

The SHC observed that the petitioners’ counsel had been unable to set forth a case for the invocation of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the court and dismissed the petitions, along with pending applications.