KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has ordered the Karachi Water and Sewerage Corporation (KWSC) to finalise its decision about conducting fresh tendering of six hydrants in the city or putting any lawful interim arrangement in place strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy within two months.

The SHC said that such a decision must be taken after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders concerned in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

It also noted that any continued arrangement beyond contractual expiry, if not strictly backed by a lawful authority, must be regularised through a transparent and reasoned decision while no party was arbitrarily excluded and public revenue as well as interest were safeguarded.

However, a two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Muhammad Hasan Akber declined to declare the existing arrangements at such hydrants as unlawful.

SHC stresses transparency in tendering process for award of contracts of six hydrants

It further observed that judicial interference at this stage would be premature as the competent authority has not yet finally adjudicated the subject issue.

The bench maintained that the allegations of the petitioner about cartelisation and collusion remained general in nature and not supported by an adjudication by a competent forum under the relevant legal framework.

The SHC issued such directives while disposing of a petition filed in January this year impugning the operations of hydrants in the absence of a bidding process and sought directives for official respondents to immediately conduct a fresh auction of such hydrants.

Citing the secretary of the local government department, chief executive officer of KWSC and various contractors as respondents, a private firm/contractor petitioned the SHC and submitted that the last auction was held in 2023 and a two-year contract of all these hydrants had expired in May last year, but the same contractors have illegally continued to operate such hydrants without any fresh auction and lawful competitive process.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the auction process has historically been marred by cartelisation and collusion as same contractors have repeatedly secured hydrant contracts over the past 15 years by quoting marginally above reserve prices hereby restricting competition and causing loss to the public exchequer.

The lawyer also submitted that despite the expiry of contracts around a year ago, the same set of contractors continued operations of these hydrants without any lawful authority.

The counsel for the water and sewerage utility argued that after deliberation, the board of KWSC has decided to further examine the financial, operational and legal aspects of the matter before reaching a final decision and such a conclusion will be made within a reasonable time.

The counsel for two contractors had raised objections over the maintainability of the petition and contended that it was based on misconceived assumptions, selective facts and unsubstantiated allegations.

After hearing the parties concerned and examining the record, the bench in its order stated that hydrant contracts were initially awarded through a competitive bidding process in 2023 and no contemporaneous challenge was laid against such process at the relevant time.

It also said, “Allegations of cartelisation and collusion remain general in nature, unsupported by an adjudication by a competent forum under the relevant legal framework, and thus cannot be accepted at this stage in constitutional jurisdiction.”

The bench further observed that admittedly, the matter of renewal/fresh auction was presently under active consideration of KWSC/competent authority and it indicated that financial, operational and legal aspects required further examination before a final decision was taken.

“In such circumstances, judicial interference at this stage in the form of declaring the existing arrangement unlawful would be premature, particularly where the competent authority has not yet finally adjudicated the issue,” it added.

Nevertheless, the bench stated it is equally well-settled that public procurement and management of public assets strictly conform to the principles of transparency, fairness, equality of opportunity and compliance with Articles 4, 18 and 25 of the Constitution.

The SHC also said any continued arrangement beyond contractual expiry, if not strictly backed by a lawful authority, must be regularised through a transparent and reasoned decision, ensuring that no party is arbitrarily excluded and that public revenue and interest are safeguarded, it stated.

The order further said, “Accordingly, while declining to grant the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner at this stage, this petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent No.2/competent authority shall, within a period of two months, positively finalise its decision regarding the conduct of fresh auction or any lawful interim arrangement strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy.”

It ordered that such a decision must be taken after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all stakeholders concerned in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

“A speaking order shall be passed, clearly reflecting reasons, addressing the issues of transparency, continuation of arrangements, and future bidding process. It is clarified that until such final decision is taken, the matter shall remain within the domain of the competent authority; however, the same shall not be construed as approval of any arrangement found to be contrary to law,” it concluded.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2026