August 08, 2008	Friday	Sha’aban 5, 1429

KARACHI, Aug 7: Twenty-one buses were acquired and paid for by the police department pending a petition challenging the very award of the contract, a lawyer submitted before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Thursday.

The bench, which consisted of acting Chief Justice Azizullah M. Memon and Justice Khalid Ali Z. Qazi, was hearing a petition moved by a vehicle manufacturing concern.

Advocate M. Afzal Siddiqui, the petitioner’s counsel, said the police department invited tenders in March for supply of 25 buses and four parties came forward to submit their bids. Technical proposals of all four parties were accepted by the department. The financial proposals came under consideration subsequently and the petitioner concern learnt in May that the lowest bid submitted by it had been rejected while the highest bid tendered by another concern had been accepted. The department gave evasive replies and assigned no reason for rejection of the lowest and acceptance of the highest bid.

A petition assailing the deal was filed on June 2 and notices to the police department and other respondents were issued for June 6. A deputy inspector-general appeared on June 6 and said under the advertised invitation for bids, the department was not bound to state reasons. The buses the department had opted to buy were technically sound and a decision had to be taken promptly. Further hearing was adjourned to June 17.

On June 16, according to the counsel, the police department and the successful bidder submitted rejoinders. Besides asserting the technical superiority of the vehicles purchased, the rejoinders said the transaction had already been completed. Five of the buses were delivered on June 5 and another 16 on June 10. The payment had already been made and the deal was an accomplished fact.

The petitioner concern said the impugned deal was acted upon after the institution of its petition. The respondents did not disclose on June 6, the first date of hearing, that the vehicles had been delivered and paid for. Pressing for an interim injunction, the petitioner informed the bench that the high court order of June 6 adjourning the matter to June 17 had already been challenged in the Supreme Court, which has issued notices and advised the petitioner to wait for a high court decision on merit.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Afzal Siddiqui contended that the impugned contract was acted upon hurriedly pending the proceedings. Under the public procurement ordinance of 2002 and the rules framed under it in 2004 contracts had to be awarded in a fair and transparent manner. All specifications and preferences should be duly advertised along with the invitation for bids and no subsequent change could be allowed. Besides, under Section 33 (b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, all contracts worth more than Rs 50 million must be sent to the bureau. Because of the high prices quoted by the successful bidder, the lawyer said, the department could only acquire 21 of the 25 vehicles sought to be procured.