Islamabad:
The High Court of Peshawar (PHC) has canceled the award of a supply contract of several million rupees in rupee, qualifying the process of “designed”, “discriminatory” and a “quintesential case of poor provision”.
The decision can shake up the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) health supply system.
The KP Health Department had awarded a contract to M / S Frontier Dextrose LTD for the supply of hospital medicines for the year 2024-2025.
A citizen, Waqar Ahmad, filed a petition for pro Bono Publico denunciation through Shumail Ahmad Butt Advocate contesting the legality of the public procurement process.
A PHC division bench including judge Syed Arshad Ali and judge Dr Khurshid Iqbal set aside the offer allocated to M / S Frontier Dextrose Ltd through a prescription dated March 25.
In its detailed 10 -page order, the bench ordered the KP health department to cancel the existing sentence and strictly reset the supply process in accordance with the law.
“We allow this petition and the Direct respondent n ° 3 to cancel the offer offered by the respondent n ° 6 for the supply of drugs for the financial year 2024-25 and to reset the process of purchasing drugs strictly in accordance with the law,” he said.
The bench noted that the Director General of Drugs and the Director General of Health Services, who were present in court, were repeatedly invited to explain the justification behind the substitution of the content of an affidavit.
Affidavit had to include a company indicating: “The undersigned did not make any batch of drugs, medicines, medical devices, disposable surgery, cotton and related goods, etc., which have been declared furtines / falsified by
The DTL (Drug test laboratory) of the KP or any other public DTL in Pakistan “.
The order said that said officers could not provide a satisfactory response, in addition to maintaining that such a possibility was discussed under the 1976 law.
“In particular, they neither offered any explanation or imposed any file before the court to demonstrate what required the omission of this essential criterion.
“Likewise, it is perplexed that when this lance was brought to the attention of the purchasing authority, he admitted that such an omission should not be repeated in the future and ordered that said clause is restored in the Bid-III form (Affidavit).
“However, he tolerated omission in current purchases only on the grounds that no tenderer competing had an objection during the tender process.
“It should be noted that it was not the responsibility of a tenderer competing to raise this concern; the authority should rather have asking for comments from the entity which supplies concerning the justification of the deletion / omission of the said clause,” he said.
According to the ordinance, after a careful examination, it has become obvious that this omission was deliberately made to allow the participation of M / S Frontier Dextrose Ltd in the tender process.
“This constitutes a quintesential case of poor provision, making the purchases contested unlike the public interest,” he said.
The judgment referred to the decision of a high court of Islamabad (IHC) which highlighted the ethical obligations of the purchase of agencies while condemning any practice which compromises the integrity of the process, including the acceptance of donations from suppliers.
“The cited judgment collectively establishes that public procurement must strictly respect the principles of transparency, equity and non-discrimination, ensuring that public resources are used effectively and equitably.
“Thus, in no case can a supply process be funded by valid public resources if it does not become integrity, lack of equity and transparency, is marred by favoritism and nepotism, or is adapted for the benefit of a specific individual,” he said.
The court concluded that a key clause in tender documents had been deliberately failed to facilitate the eligibility of a tenderer, without plausible justification in the file.
“This constitutes a quintesential case of poor results, making the purchases contested unlike the public interest.”
Citing a series of historical judgments of the Supreme Court and the high lessons of Pakistan, the bench has strengthened the constitutional need for transparency, equity and competition in all public passages. The court stressed that public funds cannot be provided by tailor -made or handled tenders.
