Khalid (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

1 . Constitution Petition No. D- 18 18 of 2024 (Khalid us. Prouince of Sindh & othersl

2.Constitution Petition No. D- 2158 of 2O24 (Ghttlnm Akber Mughul us. Prouince of Sindh & ottetsl

DATEOF HEARING ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF E

Before;

Muhammad Saleem f essar, f;

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, I

Date of hearine and Order: 26. 02.20,25.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Thaheem, Advocate for petitioner in CPD No.1818 of 2024.

None present for petitioner in C.P No. D-2158 of 2024. Mr. Zulifqar Ali Naich, AAG.

ORDER

Ailnan-ul-Kafim Memon l:- The petitioners request the court to cancel the joint tenders (NlT 2322/ 2024 and 580 / 2024) order separate electrical work tenders for licensed contractors, and halt the opening of the current tenders.

2.The petitioners, who claim to be the licensed elecfrical contractor (M/S SK Corporation), are challenging two ioint tenders issued by the respondents for school construction and renovation projects' These tenders combine civil and electrical work, violating Rule 48 of the Electricity Act 1910, which requires separate tenders for electrical work by iicensed electrical contractors. Learned counsei for the petitioners emphasized that Petitioners' claims of tender irregularities, involving public funds, warrant scrutiny. They act as potential "whistleblowers'" Public bidding must be transparent and yield the best price' Courts must ensure fair, equal, and non-discriminatory tender awards, preventing funds. Public interest demands this accountability. 1&!trary use of public

I 3. The. petitioners, a licensed electrical contractors, submit that the \\ respondents' joint tenders (NlT 2322/ 2024 artd 580/ 2024) violate Rule 48 i*

of the Electricity Act 1910, which requires separate electrical work tenders. They assert that the respondents disregarded their objections and prior court orders (CP 3396/2013 and 1370/2009), with tender openings imminenf they seek court intervention.

4.The Sindh government acknowledges the devastating 2022 floods, which severely damaged thousands of schools, impacting millioru of students. To address this, a reconstuuction project (ADP No. 2941 and IJSDP No. 224 of 2024-25, estimated cost Rs. 12.337 billion) was approved with a tight completion deadline of June 2026.

5.The learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) argued that the school reconstruction project is of utmost urgency, with potential delays causing significant financial losses and impacting students. To ensure timely completioru the government oPted for joint tenders requiring contractors with both civil and electrical licenses, a practice permissible under SPPRA policy and the Electricity Rules 1937. Leamed AAG submitted that to ensure the project's timely completion by financially capable contractors, the govemment established tender requirements that align with regulations. These requitements, including PEC category C-4 and specific electrical licenses, comply with Rule 48 of the Electricity Rules 1937. Precedent supports dismissing such petitions due to the project's urgency. The government denies any rights violations, asserts the petitioner's misrePresentatiorL and requests dismissal with costs.

6.Electric Inspector Masroor Ahmed Mughal, under the Sindh Energy Departrnent, has explained his duties with the narration that he is bound to resolving elechicity disputes under the Electricity Act 1910, Sindh Inspection Order 20M, and enforcing electrical licensing rules (Electricity Rules 1932 Rule 48). He emphasized that Rule 48(1) mandates licensed electrical contractors for electrical work, requiring seParate electrical contracts without PEC registration. This Court has previously aJfirmed this in CP No. D-1370l2009 and CP No. 3396/2013. Though the ,petitioners contacted the tender issuers, they failed to inform the Electric

i Inspectorate about the violation of potential Rule 48. Consequently, the o{pspectorate, responsible for en-forcement, notified the tender issuers of

Rule 48 and this court's ruling in CP No. 1370/2009. He prayed for dismissal of the petitions

7.We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance,

8.Despite ongoing school reconstruction efforts in Sindh, funded by various proiects, petitions are causing delays, impacting 824,008 children' Competent Authorities are directed to ensure transParency and prevent fund misappropriatioq with accountability for any misconduct' g. Established legal principle dictates that when a law prescribes a specific procedure, that procedure must be strictly followed' Courts are tasked with interPreting statutes based on their clear and ordinary meaning, not with adding or altering provisions, regardless of perceived benefits. courts should not insert woids into legislation, particularly those not reasonably implied by establishdd interpretive principles'

10.The petitioner requests the court to declare the petitioners the rightfut recipient of the procurement elechic contracti however, opt for cancellation of the tenders. This indicates the petitioner's Iole was solely I that of a participant in the tendering/bidding process' Whereas the school reconstruction project is urgent. To prevent delays and financial losset the government used joint tenders, as allowed by SPPRA and Electricity Rules 1937. These tenderg requiring PEC C4 and specific electrical licenses' comply with Rule 48. Due to the Proiect's urgency and preceden! the government denies the rights of the Petitioners' Based on the weight of the cited legal basis, we conclude that mere participation in the tender process does not create any vested rights for the petitioners to be awarded the procurement contract' According to the Supreme Cowt in !g91f,pfu17996 SCMR 1433, rejecting the highest bid and ordering a re-bid' which provides equal opportunity, does not violate natural justice principles' U, It is settled law that disputed question of fact and f or contractual in atte.s are not generally amenable for determination in the exercise of .Sonstitutional iurisdiction; however, we do unreservedly retain the

I

jurisdiction to judicially review the commercial enterprises, upon the actions of state anvil of the settled principles of law.

1,2. To ensure a fair and Iegal tender process, the responsible authoritv win conduct a deh,ed _I1,"": "" ravoritism. arbitrariness, ;,T";H#' #"[rj:# #:"H measures. As public money is at stake, the project,s completion within the agreed timeframe is mandabry.

13.Following the rea outlled above', these petitioru disposecl of, with tl-re are obr".:.:ll' vations noted in the prer/ous paragraphs.

I

l