KARACHI, June 12: Justice Wahid Bux Brohi directed on Wednesday the official assignee of the Sindh High Court to undertake separate tests of bulletproof jackets, imported from South Africa on the order of the Sindh police, by experts separately from police, army experts drawn from the 5th Corps Karachi and foreign experts, as suggested by the plaintiff.

The order was given when the application of M/s Sana International vs the IG Sindh in a suit came up for consideration. The plaintiff is a supplier of bulletproof jackets to the Pakistan Army and the Sindh Rangers also. The contract with police envisaged import of jackets from South Africa.

When the matter came, the Advocate-General Sindh, Raja Qureshi, placed on record a letter signed by Asad Ashraf Malik, Additional IG Sindh, and submitted that inquiry by an army expert from the 5th Corps would be sufficient to verify the police’s claims.

Justice Brohi observed that to give transparency to the transactions, which did not appear to be transparent and smacked of malice, let there be three inspections independently and the official assignee should come before the court on July 4 with those reports.

The letter of the AIG said the Sindh police are the buyer of the bulletproof jackets. According to clause 7 of the contract, the consignment was tested and rejected by a duly constituted Inspection Committee of very senior police officers who were fully competent to assess the suitability of the product.

The police were opposed to outside intervention or presence and had contended that experts quoted by the plaintiff were employees/stakeholders of their principals and as such would be prejudiced. Though the police considered their inspection committee fully competent for the test, they conceded that if the court so desired, the test could be conducted in the presence of an army officer, nominated by the 5th Corps Headquarters, as a last resort.

According to the facts of the case, the police had invited tender for the purchase of 1,600 bulletproof jackets. The plaintiff was one of the bidders, whose samples were examined along with those of others and were finally approved.

After the parties complied with all legal formalities, they entered into a written contract for the supply of 1,428 bulletproof jackets at the rate of Rs42,000 apiece. The total amount of contract agreed was Rs59,976,000.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, who had already made full arrangements with their principal in South Africa, confirmed the transaction and remitted abroad the required sale consideration. Subsequently, an “irrevocable, confirmed and negotiable local letter of credit” was opened. However, much to the surprise of the plaintiff, an order dated April 19 was issued by the defendant No 2 through which the agreement was cancelled on the ground that “the funds allocated during the financial year 2001-2002 for the purchase of various durable goods have been diverted by the Finance Department, Government of Sindh, towards the implementation of Police Reforms.”

The plaintiff had contended that such an act was “malicious and contrary to the record.” Once it was decided at the level of the Accountant-General, Sindh, for the opening of a local letter of credit for Rs59,976,000 the said amount was appropriated in favour of National Bank of Pakistan. Second, the budgetary provisions in respect of police and Civil Armed forces the IG indicated that the amount kept reserved for the purchase of durable goods, bulletproof jackets, was Rs300,00,000, the plaintiff maintained.

The directors of the plaintiff also maintained, on the basis of reliable information, that the aforesaid budgetary amount was still available and at the disposal of the defendants for the purchase of the durable goods, including bulletproof jackets.

It was the plaintiff’s case that its directors were condemned unheard inasmuch as no opportunity was extended to them to explain the legal requirement and other facts involved in the above transaction, and that all the defendants clearly violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the directors.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants intended to award/grant contract for bulletproof jackets to their near and dear ones after depriving him of his lawful rights.

It was emphasized that a consignment of some 600 bulletproof jackets out of 1,428 reached the Karachi Port, which after release were deposited with the defendant Nos 1 and 2 on May 14.

On June 1, the plaintiff was surprised and shocked to receive a letter from the Manager (Import), National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, Karachi, with several letters enclosed therewith, through which the plaintiff was informed indirectly that in the absence of its representative, the defendant No 1s and 2 had conducted an inspection/testing and declared the consignment of 600 jackets “substandard.”

It was the plaintiff’s case that one of the conditions of the agreement dated 4th April, 2002 was that a few jackets out of the supplied material would be physically checked and tested with 9 MM and SMG 7.65 X 39 MM and that such Committee report would also be signed by all the Members of Inspection Committee/CPO Sindh.

It was also the case of the plaintiff that provisions of the contract made it obligatory on the defendant Nos 1 and 2 to inform him in advance about holding of the testing/inspection and to ask the plaintiff, in case of sub- standard goods, for replacement of the consignment which they had failed to do.

The plaintiff claimed that its representatives conducted an inquiry and were informed that no real testing procedure was ever conducted in respect of the consignment received by the defendant Nos 1 and 2. In fact, the so-called testing was carried out from point-blank range. It was for this reason that the plaintiff was not informed prior to conducting the so-called inspection/testing as the said defendants had already decided to reject the same by hook and by crook.

The International Specification for conducting testing of bulletproof jackets was blatantly violated in the present case which reflected ill-will and mala fides of the defendant Nos 1 and 2, the plaintiff maintained and pleaded for an independent/ unbiased inspection/testing in the presence of a representative of the Court.

The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants Nos 1 and 2, as well as the members of the inspection team/CPO, should be directed to deposit the sample of the life-saving jackets, which were subjected to the so-called testing/ inspection, with the official assignee. In addition, sample jackets which were delivered to them at the time of the bidding process, which were lying with them and on the basis of which a contract was approved, were also demanded to compare the earlier samples with the tested jackets.

It was an interesting situation because even if the funds were diverted by the finance department yet the irrevocable letter of credit was in tact. The police department gave the order, under the orders of the IG, it got the irrevocable LC opened. The police had not explained why they received the goods partly, in compliance with the contract, after they had cancelled the contract unilaterally and without showcause notice to the suppliers, who were not called upon to participate in the testing, as per clause 7 of the contract, these points were raised during the course of hearing.

The case also raised questions about safety standards of police as compared to the army and the rangers. The matter also sent negative signals to foreign traders about Pakistan’s adherence to international contracts.