KARACHI, July 26: The Sindh High Court directed on Thursday the Sindh police to release payment to the plaintiff for bulletproof jackets already supplied, by withdrawing the letter addressed to the State Bank.

Justice Shabbir Ahmed of the SHC ordered this on the applications of the plaintiff, M/s Sana International, which had entered into a contract for supplying over 1,400 bulletproof jackets to the Sindh police.

Out of the contracted jackets, 600 pieces were supplied which the defendants said were substandard and were rejected. The defendant No 3, on behalf of the Inspector-General of the Sindh police, had written a letter to the SBP on May 29, informing the latter (State Bank) not to make payment as the jackets supplied had failed the test. Hence the CMA 4982 was filed and retesting of the jackets already supplied was ordered in the presence of the official assignee and representatives of both the parties.

On July 22, the official assignee submitted report of the test made on bulletproof jackets imported from South Africa by Sana International. It was found to be successful and met the standard.

The report was based on the findings of the experts of A. W. Van Niekerk General Manager of Ballistic Body Armour (Pvt) Ltd, South Africa, and a Lt-Col for the Chief of Staff, 5th Corps Headquarters, Karachi. The test made on four bulletproof jackets was found to be successful, the Nazir of the SHC said in his report.

The report of the 5th Corps said that “keeping in view the parameters, requirements and specifications subject jacket meet the standard. However jackets demanded by the police department are having only front plate whereas the nature of employment and optimum utilization of the subject jackets demand that it must also have a rear ceramic plate to guard against the rear side which is vulnerable without plate.”

“In view of the above facts the jacket is recommended to be inducted in police force. The jacket has the provision for rear ceramic plate. The police should therefore negotiate with the suppliers for provision of the same,” the 5th Corps report had said.

It was suggested in the report that the police department work out requirements/parameters before placing orders/assigning contracts to companies.

The test report referred to above was not objected to by Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, Abbas Ali, but referred to the experts’ report that the rear ceramic plate to guard against the rear side by placing ceramic plate, for which the jackets had the provision, should be included. He refused to accept the balance jackets without it.

Counsel Rashid A. Rizvi, representing the plaintiff, contended that the ceramic plate on the rear side was not a requirement in terms of the agreement. If the police department wanted the rear ceramic plate, as recommended by Muhammad Aamir Khan of Headquarters 5th Corps, Karachi, the department could negotiate with the supplier, he argued saying the supplier was not bound to provide in the rear ceramic in the absence of any agreement.

Justice Ahmed, in his order, said he had examined the agreement and the report, and had found no provision for rear ceramic plate in the specification, though such jackets should have these provisions to guard from the rear side as well. Since it was recommended by the army representative, the defendants might examine it, but the plaintiff could not be forced to supply the same.

Since the supplied jackets were found of standard, the defendants were directed to make the payment for 600 jackets already supplied by the plaintiff by withdrawing the letter addressed to the SBP, Justice Ahmed said in his order.

On Mr Rizvi’s application for extension in the shipment period by 30 days, Justice Ahmed ordered that without prejudice to the right of the defendants as the defendants were not ready and willing to take the remaining consignment. The plaintiff might import the remaining consignment at their risk and cost, he observed.

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

After compliance with all legal formalities by the parties, 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 its 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.”

It was an interesting situation because even if the funds were diverted by the finance department yet the irrevocable letter of credit was intact. The police department gave the order, under the orders of the IG, it got the irrevocable LC opened. It was not explained by police as to 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 testing, as per clause 7 of the contract.

A local firm, M/s Lyra Shoe Company (Pvt) Ltd, had filed an application, claiming to be the lowest bidder in the bidding held on March 15 for the purchase of 1,600 bulletproof jackets by the Sindh police for a total amount of Rs59,976,000.

The intervener claimed that his jackets had passed the NIJ standards when the same was subjected to ballistic tests at the Pakistan Army’s Inspectorate of Armaments in Rawalpindi. The intervener had also supplied jackets to the Pakistan Navy and the rangers in Sindh.

When Mr Ijaz Ahmed, representing the intervener, contended that to favour the plaintiff the ballistic tests were not carried out in accordance with the NIJ Standard, Justice Ahmed asked if he was challenging the findings of the experts of the 5th Corps. He did not press the point.

Hearing of the plaintiff’s suit has been fixed on Aug 8.