Islamabad:
Peshawar High Court (PHC) has canceled the award of a multimillion rupee medicine supply contract calling the process “constructed”, “discriminatory” and a “very case of incorrect procurement”.
The decision can shake Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Health Procurement System.
The KP Health Department had awarded a contract to M/S Frontier Dextrose Ltd for the delivery of hospital medicine for the financial year 2024–2025.
A citizen, Waqar Ahmad, filed a Pro Bono Publico Whistle-Blower Petition through Shumail Ahmad Butt Advocate, who challenged the legality of the public purchasing process.
A PHC division bench that includes justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, deposed the bid awarded to M/S Frontier Dextrose Ltd through an order dated March 25.
In his 10-page detailed order, Bench KP Health Department imposed on canceling the existing allocation and reintroducing the procurement process strictly in accordance with the law.
“We allow this petition and direct respondent # 3 to cancel the bid offered by Respondent No. 6 for the delivery of medicine for the financial year 2024-25 and to restore the process of purchasing the medicine that is strictly in accordance with the law,” it said.
The bench noted that the Director -General of Drugs and Director -General, present in court, was repeatedly asked to explain the rationale behind replacing the content of a statement.
The statement was to include a company indicating: “The undersigned has not produced/delivered any batch of medicine (s), medicines, medical devices (s), surgical once, cotton and related goods, etc.
DTL (Drug Testing Laboratory) of KP or any other public DTL in Pakistan “.
The order said that the said officers were unable to give any satisfactory answer except to claim that such an eventuality was processed under the 1976 law.
“In particular, they did not offer an explanation or placed any list of the court to demonstrate what required omission of this essential criterion.
“Likewise, it is confusing that when this lapse was brought to the call of the purchasing authority, it admitted that such failure should not be repeated in the future and corrected that the said clause was reintroduced in Bidform-III (Affidavit).
“However, it condoned the omission of the current procurement solely because of the fact that no competing bidder had raised an objection during the bidding process.
“It must be emphasized that it was not responsible for a competing commandment to raise this concern; rather, the authority should have sought comments from the purchasing unit regarding the rationale for deletion/failure of the said clause,” it said.
According to the order, it became clear after careful consideration that this omission was deliberately done to enable the participation of M/S Frontier Dextrose LTD in the bid process.
“This is an important case of incorrect procurement, making the intended procurement as opposed to public interest,” it said.
The judgment referring to an Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) decision that highlighted ethical obligations from purchasing agencies, while also condemning any practice that compromises the integrity of the process, including acceptance of gifts from suppliers.
“The cited case law states that public procurement must comply with principles of transparency, justice and non-discrimination, which ensures that public resources are used effectively and fairly.
“Thus, under no circumstances can any purchasing process financed by public resources considered valid if it lacks integrity, lacks justice and transparency, is obsessed with favorites and nepotism or is tailored to the benefit of a specific individual,” it said.
The court found that a key clause in the documents offered was deliberately omitted to facilitate the eligibility of a bidder without any plausible justification on the record.
“This is an important case of incorrect procurement, making the intended procurement in violation of public interest.”
With reference to a series of landmarks judgments from the Supreme Court and high courts over Pakistan, the bench reinforced the constitutional necessity of transparency, justice and competition in all public procurement. The court emphasized that public funds cannot be delivered through tailor -made or manipulated tendering processes.
