PLJ 2025 Quetta 174
Present: IQBAL AHMED KASI, J.
M/s. MEHTARZAI & BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through MUHAMMAD
IBRAHIM--Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through its Secretary Home Department and others--
Respondents
C.P. No. 1021 of 2025, decided on 4.7.2025.
Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2014--
----Rr. 56 & 56-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Rejection of bid--Contract was
awarded to another party--Complaint--Rejected--Alternate remedy--No appeal filed by petitioner
against rejection of complainant--Petitioner had directly approached this Court without
exhausting statutory remedy of appeal before BPPRA Review Committee/Board--Constitution
mandates that High Courts shall not intervene where an adequate and efficacious alternative
remedy was available--Against act of procurement agency by filing an application/complaint,
which upheld decision of procurement agency without providing an opportunity of hearing to
him, but it was equally true that against decision whatsoever of GRC, next fora provided to
petitioner under relevant law, was/is to lodge an appeal to Review Committee, which had not
been done by petitioner--Petition dismissed. [P. 176] A & B
Mr. Abdullah Khan , Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 4.7.2025.
ORDER
The instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan 1973 (“the Constitution”) carries the following prayer clause:
“It is accordingly respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed in following
terms:
A. To declare that the act of Respondent No. 3 to awarding the work in question to 3rd
party/company on full rates and without adopting due process of law as per BPPRA Rules, 2014,
as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority.
B. To direct the Respondent No. 2 to call meeting of grievance committee and award full
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
C. To direct the Respondent No. 3 to cancel the award to third party and to award the same
on merits.
D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and appropriate in the
circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of petitioner and against the
respondents, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner, a registered construction firm has
challenged the rejection of its bid for certain works tendered by the Provincial Disaster
Management Authority (‘PDMA’), Balochistan (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner alleges
violations of the Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (‘BPPRA’) Rules, 2014
and claims infringement of its fundamental rights. It is averred by the petitioner that his company
participated in the tender process for the works i.e. provision of facilities at ERCAT
Kanmetherzai, provision of facilities and maintenance of PDMA Head Office Packages-II, TSE-
242505699083 and provision of facilities and maintenance of PDMA, Head Office Package-III,
TSE-242505699093. It is further averred by the petitioner that his bid was rejected and the
contract was awarded to another party, against which he filed a grievance application before the
Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) of PDMA, but surprisingly, the GRC, upheld his
disqualification without affording an opportunity of hearing to him, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the act of the Respondent No.
2 by granting the award to 3rd party without adopting due process of law and the principle/rules
enshrined by BPPRA, Rules of 2014 is illegal and unlawful; that the Respondent No. 2, being
procuring agency was/is mandated by the governing Act and the Rules to act fairly, reasonably,
honestly and justly, but he failed to do so and illegally disqualified the petitioner and awarded
the contract to a party even not participated in the bidding process; that the petitioner was
disqualified on the basis of lacking certain requirements, but actually all the requirements were
fulfilled by the petitioner, which clearly shows that the respondents on the basis of mala fide
intention and ulterior motives disqualified the petitioner and awarded the work to 3rd party; that
works were granted to 3rd party on full rates without conducting bid opening process, which is
clear violation of the BPPRA Rules, 2024 and also loss to Government exchequer; that the non-
responsive attitude of Respondent No. 1 on the complaint of petitioner, in view of grave
irregularity committed by the Respondent No. 2 in the procurement process for the subject
works, anticipating processing of opening financial bids amounts to pave way for issuance of
work orders to blue-eyed contractors on the basis of mis-procurement, in the peculiar
circumstances and to avoid loss to the public exchequer worth billions of rupees.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case.
5. The primary question before me is whether the petitioner was justified in invoking the
writ jurisdiction of this Court, in the demonstrable presence of alternate fora(s) specially created
for the adjudication of such disputes. It is thus considered appropriate to abjure any observations
with regard to the merits of the case and just to be confined to the determination of the aforesaid
question. It is apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner has directly approached this
Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the BPPRA Review
Committee/Board. The Constitution mandates that High Courts shall not intervene where an
adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is available. Undoubtedly, the BPPRA, Rules, 2014,
provide a comprehensive grievance redressal mechanism to address the complaints of bidders
that may occur due to act or decision of the procuring agency. Admittedly, the petitioner has an
alternate remedy/appropriate forum, as provided under Rule 56 and 56A of the BPPRA Rules of
2014 i.e. Grievance Redressal Committee and Procurement Review Committee. Though it is
contention of the petitioner that he had approached the GRC against the act of the procurement
agency by filing an application/complaint, which upheld the decision of the procurement agency
without providing an opportunity of hearing to him, but it is equally true that against the decision
whatsoever of the GRC, the next fora provided to the petitioner under the relevant law, was/is to
lodge an appeal to the Review Committee, which has not been done by the petitioner. It has
already been settled that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is equitable in nature and can
only be exercised if the Court is satisfied that there is no alternate remedy, but in the case in
hand, obviously, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, thus, in such view of the
matter, the instant petition is not maintainable for want of alternate remedy.
This being the whole case of the petitioner, success of the instant constitutional petition is not
visible, which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance, provided under the BPPRA,
Rules of 2014.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.