2026 C L C 357

2026 C L C 357

[Lahore]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

Messrs G.P. ENTERPRISES through Sole Proprietor ---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab and others -

--Respondents

Writ Petition No. 69497 of 2024, decided on 30th January, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 18---Constitutional guarantee of freedom of trade, business

and profession---Scope---Right to freedom of trade, business or

profession under Art.18 of the Constitution is not an absolute right

but is subject to qualifications and restrictions prescribed by the

law---Such restrictions have to be reasonable and the Courts are

competent to review such restrictions on the touchstone of

reasonability.

Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals v. Government of Punjab

through Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others

2023 CLC 948 rel.

(b) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014---

----Rr. 4, 8, 9 & 67---Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024, Regln.5---

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 18---Mis-procurement---Grouping of

works---Splitting of tendered work---Petitioners assailed

procurement process carried out by authorities---Validity---In terms

of Regln.5 of Punjab Procurement Regulations 2024 and R.8 of

Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 annual development plan by each

procuring agency with respect to procurement to be carried out in

that fiscal year has to be devised within one month of the beginning

of fiscal year and the same must be made public---Such procurement

plan would rule out possibility of tinkering and/or manipulation in

any tender at the time of inviting bids---There is an administrative

and executive discretion vested in the procuring agency to

formulate and design procurement plan by grouping and/or splitting

the works for the purposes of ensuring widest possible competition

and obviating the possibility of favouritism---Once such discretion is

exercised, through an annual development plan, the procuring

agencies are obligated to adhere to the same without splitting and/or

regrouping the same in terms of R.9 of Punjab Procurement Rules

2014---Adherence to R.8 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 as to announcement of proposed annual procurement plan in a financial

year is a legal obligation which stands as a bar and check upon

procuring agency to arbitrarily split and/or regroup the subject

matter of procurement to tailor make the same to extend

favouritism---Procuring agency should at least, at the planning

stage, consider splitting of the work when it is tendering the same

that are comprised of different geographical locations and different

types of services/activities and if it still decides to group them

together in one contract then it should, at a minimum, state its

reasons for doing so---This should be encouraged as a best practice

amongst the procuring agencies to avoid any challenges during

procurement process---High Court declined to interfere in

procurement process, as the authorities had not committed any mis-

procurement---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Kitchen Cuisine (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines

Corporation and others PLD 2016 Lah. 412; Messrs Muhammad Hanif

and Co. through Authorized representative and another v. Chief

Engineer North, Pak PWD and 3 others 2023 CLC 443; Messrs

Mohammad Ramzan and Company v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and 4 others 2024

CLC 1394; Adam Sugar Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Ministry of Commerce and 2 others 2012 CLD 1734; In the

Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc. 2012 SCMR 773 and

Reliance Energy Limited and another v. Maharashtara State Road

Development Corporation Ltd. and others (2007) 8 SCC 1 rel.

Malik Sultan Amir Awan for Petitioner.

Imran Khan and Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocates

General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Iftikhar Ahmed Mian, Ghulam Hamza, DMO (E&M), MCL and

Zulfiqar Ahmed, A.D. Legal, MCL for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7.

Syed Shahab Qutab: Amicus Curiae.

Dates of hearing: 28th and 30th January, 2025.

JUDGMENT

ANWAAR HUSSAIN, J.---Through this single judgment, the present

as well as the connected constitutional petition, bearing W.P.

No.76292/2024, are being decided simultaneously, as common

questions of law are involved that pertains to the manner in which the

respondent-Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore ( MCL ) is carrying out

the impugned procurements. 2. The petitioner in present as well as connected petition are the

engineering contractors, holding licenses in terms of Construction and

Operation of Engineering Works Byelaws, 1987 ( the Byelaws, 1987 ) of

Pakistan Engineering Council ( PEC ). Both the petitioners have been

issued licenses in respect of Category C-6 , which entitles them to

participate in bidding process of the projects valuing upto Rs.25

million. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 (officials of the MCL) have published

various tender notices totalling 68 in number, forming subject matter

of the present and connected petition, in which at least three different

nature and types of works advertised have been clubbed together;

consequently, the collective value of the projects has reached beyond

the ceiling of Rs.25 million. It has been alleged that combining

different types of work in one project is illegal and the MCL is

obligated to split the same. Report and para-wise comments on behalf

of the respondents were filed in which it has been contended that in

terms of Rule 9 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 ( Rules 2014 ),

there is a prohibition against the splitting of contracts and the

grouping was done with the approval of the Competent Authority,

hence, no illegality has been committed.

3. Malik Sultan Amir Awan, Advocate, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that by combining different type/nature of the

works, bid value of the impugned tenders has exceeded Rs.25 million,

which is impermissible under the law, and as a corollary, the

petitioners and other similarly placed contractors, falling under

Category C-6 , have been debarred from participating in the tenders,

which amounts to discrimination and/or mis-procurement.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the MCL as well as Mr.

Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General, submitted that

this petition is not maintainable as alternate remedy, in terms of Rule

67 of the Rules 2014 is available, before the Grievance Redressal

Committee ( GRC ), which has been duly constituted and the petitioners

should approach the said forum before invoking the constitutional

jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Mian, Advocate, learned

counsel for the MCL further submitted that the procurement has been

carried out on the special initiative of the Government of Punjab, for

improving the quality of civic amenities in the city and the Planning

and Development Department ( P&D Department ), along with other

stakeholders including Local Government and Community

Development Department, approved the scheme in meeting dated

02.08.2024, under an umbrella scheme, at a total cost of Rs.3,677/-

millions and different schemes in Lahore City were approved, hence,

the MCL was obligated not to split the works in respect of which

tenders were issued and bids were accordingly invited. Mr. Imran

Khan, Assistant Advocate General also argued the case and submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules 2014 spells out the principles of the

procurement and also stipulates that the object of the procurement is

to bring value for money for procuring agency in an efficient and

economic manner and the Rule ibid has been held to be the Grund

Norm of the procurement laws

1. Adds that subject to Rule 9 of the

Rules 2014, the procuring agency is the best judge to determine the

cost and the scope of work to be tendered in a tendering process.

5. Considering the importance of legal questions involved, Syed

Shahab Qutab, Advocate Supreme Court, was appointed as amicus

curiae. He submitted that generally, the Constitutional Courts decline

to interfere in procurement and planning decisions made by the

procuring agencies and only where there is a patent mis-procurement,

constitutional jurisdiction can be exercised. He added that sets of the

rules and regulations that apply to the tenders in question are the

Rules 2014, the Punjab Local Governments (Works) Rules, 2017 ( Rules

2017 ), and the Punjab Procurement Regulations, 2024 ( Regulations

2024 ). Further contended that in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules 2014,

procuring agency shall ensure fair and transparent approach bringing

value for money while carrying out the procurements process and in

terms of Rule 9, the procuring agency shall announce in an

appropriate manner the procurement for each financial year and shall

proceed in accordance with law without any splitting or re-grouping of

the procurement so planned. Adds that in the instant case, the MCL

appears to be justified that there is an express prohibition under the

Rules 2014 against splitting of the contract and therefore, once the

approval of P & D Department and the other stakeholders is available,

no illegality appears to have been committed. As regards

discrimination, learned amicus submitted that grouping of works in

the impugned tenders does not offend Article 18 read with Article 25

of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ( the

Constitution ) as the freedom of trade, business or profession under

the former provision of the Constitution is not absolute right but is

subject to certain qualifications as prescribed under the relevant law

and hence, combining the works does not offend Articles 18 and 25 of

the Constitution. In support of his contentions, learned amicus has

placed reliance on multiple reported judgments

2. Concluded that if the

procuring agencies opt to combining or grouping different works or

splitting the same, reasons are to be given and in this regard,

reference to the provisions of UK s Procurement Act, 2023 and EU

Directives has been made.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. Following questions require adjudication by this Court: i. Whether the present petitions are maintainable and this Court,

in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, can examine the

validity of the impugned tenders?

ii. Whether the impugned tenders violate the principles of

procurement contemplated under the applicable

procurement laws in respect of openness, transparency,

competition and impartiality?

iii. Whether the impugned tenders violate Article 25 of the

Constitution, being discriminatory as well as the petitioners

fundamental right to freedom of trade, business and

profession under Article 18 of the Constitution?

iv. Whether there is any prohibition in the law against the

splitting of works in a tender or the procuring agency is

under an obligation to consider the division of the tendered

works into smaller contracts and if the procuring agency has

chosen to club or bundle different works in different sites, in

one contract, is it obliged to give reasons for doing so?

8. Adverting to the maintainability of the petitions, it is by far settled

principle of law that judicial review cannot be denied so far as

exercise of contractual powers of government bodies are concerned,

but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism and is

exercised in the larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of

the Court that in the matter of award of a contract power has been

exercised for any collateral purpose as held in case of Messrs

Mohammad Ramzan and Company.3 In case of Muhammad Ramzan

supra, it has been further held that the Government undertakings and

statutory bodies should have a free hand while framing terms and

conditions of a tender and the Courts ought not to interfere with the

same unless there is material on the record to demonstrate that they

are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated by bias. A Court

cannot interfere with the terms and conditions of a tender because it

feels that some other term in the tender would have been fair, wiser or

logical. However, at the same time, Courts cannot be a silent bystander

if it transpires that a procuring agency is acting in an arbitrary or

discriminatory manner in relation to the public procurement. This

view has been endorsed by the Sindh High Court

4. In particular, the

Courts have stepped in to prevent violations of public procurement

rules where such violations were apparent from the record. The

Islamabad High Court

5 emphasized the role of public procurement

rules in ensuring transparency and fairness in the award of public

contracts and the fundamental duty of the public authorities to ensure

that there is maximum competition in the process of awarding such contracts by highlighting the importance of the concept of a level

playing field in the public procurement process which was essential

for purposes of Articles 9, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. In cases where

there was lack of openness and transparency, the contracts were

declared void

6. The Indian Supreme Court

7 also held as under:

"36. level-playing field" is an important concept while construing

Article 19(1)(g)... when Article 19(1)(g) confers fundamental right

to carry on business to a company, it is entitled to invoke the

said doctrine of "level-playing field"... In the world of

globalization, competition is an important factor to be kept in

mind. The doctrine of "level playing field" is an important

doctrine which is embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution. This is because the said doctrine provides space

within which equally placed competitors are allowed to bid so as

to sub-serve the larger public interest... Decisions or acts which

result in unequal or discriminatory treatment, would violate the

doctrine of "level-playing field" embodied in Article 19(1)(g).

Time has come, therefore, to say that Article 14, which refers to

the principle of "equality" should not be read as a standalone

item but it should be read in conjunction with Article 21, which

embodies several aspects of life. There is one more aspect which

needs to be mentioned in the matter of implementation of the

afore-stated doctrine of "level playing field". According to Lord

Goldsmith, commitment to the "rule of law" is the heart of

parliamentary democracy. One of the important elements of the

rule of law is legal certainty. Article 14 applies to government

policies and if the policy or act of the government, even in

contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of "reasonableness",

then such an act or decision would be unconstitutional."

This Court is of the view that the Articles 9, 18 and 25 of the

Constitution when conjunctively read create the right to a level -

playing field to be ensured by the state or its instrumentalities when it

comes to citizens and private entities competing within the domain of

public procurement. This constitutional right to a level-playing field is

protected by the principle of transparent and open competitive

bidding enshrined within the procurement rules. Therefore, this Court

is of the opinion that since important questions regarding

interpretation of the Rules and Regulations is involved, therefore,

alternate remedy in present circumstances is not an efficacious

remedy, and the constitutional petitions are maintainable and in

exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, this Court can examine the

validity of the impugned tenders. 9. Before examining whether the impugned tenders have been

issued in violation of the applicable rules and settled principles of the

public procurement, it will be appropriate to browse the sets of rules

and regulations that apply to the tenders in question. Tendering by

local government is governed by the Rules 2017, however, the

impugned tenders do not refer to the Rules 2017. Rule 6 of the Rules

2017 provides for the preparation and approval of an annual

development plan by the local government, which shall specify the

particulars for various works as well as the order in which these will

be undertaken and an explanation whether the works will be

undertaken by a contractor or an agency. Rule 8 provides for the

enlistment of the contractors and states that such contractors shall

fulfill the criteria laid down by the P & D Department of the

government whereas Rule 8(4) contemplates that the categories of the

contractors according to the cost of the project for the enlistment and

its renewal shall be in accordance with Schedule I. Rule 8(6) states that

the contractors of various categories may tender for works in all local

government departments according to the field of specialization. Rule

9(3) states that the tendering process and procurement shall be in

accordance with the public procurement rules, i.e., Rules 2014.

Significantly, Rule 19(2) states that in case of any conflict between the

Rules 2017 and the Rules 2014, the provisions of the Rules 2014 shall

prevail. Furthermore, Rule 19(3) states that the contract for the repair

or maintenance of roads, sewage, water supply etc., shall be made in

accordance with the Rules 2014.

10. In so far as scope of Rules 2014 is concerned, Rule 4

contemplates the fundamental principle of procurement in the terms

that a procuring agency while making any procurement shall ensure

that it is made in a fair and transparent manner, brings value for

money to the procuring agency and the procurement process is

efficient and economical . Rule 8 thereof provides that a procuring

agency shall within one month of the start of a financial year devise an

annual plan for all proposed procurements. Rule 9 states that

procuring agency shall announce in an appropriate manner all

procurements for each financial year and shall proceed accordingly

without any splitting or regrouping of the procurements so planned.

Rule 10 provides protection against tailored bids and states that the

specifications in a tender should be such that it allows for the widest

possible competition and does not favour any single contractor or puts

others at a disadvantage. However, this rule is focused on the

specifications for the work including elements such as brand names

catalogue numbers etc., but not the grouping or splitting of works

under a contract. Rule 16(6) allows the P & D Department to shortlist

individual from the consultants, companies etc., and in terms of Rule 16(9), the procuring agency may invite bids from such shortlisted

companies or firms etc. Apparently, it is pursuant to the aforesaid

provision of Rules 2014 that the bids have been invited from particular

categories of contractors registered with the PEC. Rule 23 of the Rules

2014 states that the procuring agencies shall engage in open

competitive bidding. Rule 34 of the Rules 2014 is significant as it

contemplates that no procuring agency shall introduce any condition

which discriminates between bidders or which is difficult to meet. The

explanation to Rule ibid states that in determining whether a

condition is discriminatory or difficult reference shall be made to the

ordinary practices of that trade or construction business.

11. In so far as Regulations 2024 are concerned, these are specifically

referred to in the impugned tenders and provide for e-procurement

through the e-PADS system, which has been adopted in the impugned

tenders. Regulation 5 pertains to the Annual Procurement Plan of a

procuring agency, as provided in Rule 8 of the Rules 2014, which is to be

uploaded on e-PADS. Regulation 6(1) contemplates that the tenders must

be published in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules 2014 on e-PADS.

Regulation 6(3) states that the procuring agency may, as per its

requirements create LOTS or specify whether the transaction of

procurement is to be made as a whole or item-wise. In terms of

Regulation 7, registration with the e-PADS system is mandatory to

participate in e-procurement where per Regulation 17, the Rules 2014

shall apply to procurements made through e-PADS.

12. The above analysis of the Rules 2014 as well as the Rules 2017

reveals that there is no specific provision thereof that regulates the

manner in which a procuring agency is to organize the works that it

chooses to tender. In terms of Rule 6 of the Rules 2017, the local

government has discretion to formulate its annual development plan.

Similarly, in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules 2014 the procuring agency

has discretion to decide on its procurement plan for a particular year.

It is Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations 2024, which provides that a

procuring agency may, as per its requirements, create LOTS or specify

whether the transaction of procurement is to be made as a whole or

item-wise. Hence, it is well evident that the decision is left to the

discretion of the procuring agency keeping its requirements in view.

However, this does not mean that such discretion of the procuring

agency is unfettered. Both the Rules 2014 as well as Rules 2017

contemplate a number of important principles governing such

discretion, inter alia, the widest possible competition, should not

favour any single contractor (Rule 10 of Rules 2014), and not to split or

regroup the contracts that is different from the proposed procurement

for that year (Rule 9 of Rules 2014), which are meant to prevent any tailored bids to favour a particular contractor or a group of particular

contractors.

13. In determining whether the grouping of works in a particular

tender is contrary to the aforesaid principles of procurement, one

would have to start by assessing whether the organization of the

works under the impugned tenders is meant to promote favouritism.

On Courts query as to whether the impugned tenders have been

published in line with the annual procurement plan of the MCL, it was

apprised that procurement is part of the project that has been carried

out on the special initiative of the Government of Punjab for

improving the quality of amenities in the city and the P & D

Department along with other stakeholders approved the scheme at a

total cost of Rs.3,677/- million, hence, the MCL was obligated not to

split the works in respect of which impugned tenders have been

published. The stance is duly supported by the documents brought on

record. Therefore, the grouping of the works is not illegal.

14. At this juncture, it is important to note that in the impugned

tenders, different categories of contractors have been specified for

different tenders such as C-3, C-4, C-5 and even C-6. As per the data

provided by the MCL, there are 946 contractors registered in the C-3

category, 1728 contractors in the C-4 category, 1642 contractors in the

C-5 category. This Court is of the opinion that considering the large

number of the contractors who will be eligible (as per the respondent

local government) to participate in the tenders for each category, there

does not appear to be any direct evidence of favouritism or limitation

on the competition. There is no specific allegation or evidence that the

impugned tenders or any specific tender is tailored to favour any

particular contractor. As such there is no material on record to reach

the conclusion that there is any favouritism. Similarly, in order to

show that the impugned tenders are discriminatory or that those do

not provide a level playing field, the petitioners were obligated to

show that these treat similarly placed contractors in a different

manner. That is not the case. In fact, the petitioners entire case is that

they are being deprived of the opportunity to participate in these

works because the MCL has failed to split the tender into smaller lots

that would enable the contractors in the petitioners category to qualify

and be eligible for the award. This is not a ground for discrimination

since the petitioners can only claim discrimination if the contractors

in the same class, as the petitioners, were treated dissimilarly. Suffice

to observe that in the prayer clause, the petitioners have neither

assailed the contractor categorization system nor the applicable rules,

including Rule 16 of the Rules 2014 or Rule 8 of the Rules 2017,

therefore, no case of discrimination is made out. 15. As regards the grouping of works in the impugned tenders

implicating Article 18 of the Constitution in so far as the petitioners

right to freedom of trade and profession is concerned, it is pertinent to

observe that the right to freedom of trade, business or profession under

Article 18 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but is subject to

qualifications and restrictions prescribed by the law. The Courts have

held that such restrictions have to be reasonable and the Courts are

competent to review such restrictions on the touchstone of

reasonability. This Court in case of Messrs 3n-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals

supra held as under:

7. ...Now the question is that whether the policy decisions, whereby

certain conditions/requirements were incorporated to pre-

qualify the idders/applicants attracts exceptional situation,

requiring indulgence by courts. Courts normally proceed to

adjudged review policy decision/directives, if same violates

constitutional limits or legal limits, or found to be patently mala

fide or discriminatory. Unless such exceptions are available, this

court is not inclined to exercise judicial review jurisdiction and

delve to adjudge relevancy, rationality, and sufficiency of the

requirements, which probe is otherwise unwarranted when the

condition of seeking approvals/certifications was incorporated

to ensure that medical devices/drugs procured, meet desired

standards of public health and human safety.

8. Incorporation of the conditions of pre-qualification, prescribing

fiscal limits for prospective firms / bidders, to ascertain their

financial capability to honour potential commitments

undertaken, are not unreasonable. Placement of condition of

showing strong financial position - meeting desired

business/financial turnover benchmarks - is otherwise not

violative of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973 - which too permits lawful qualifications upon

conduct of trade or business. The condition imposed is a policy

decision, relevance, rationality and effectiveness thereof cannot

be reviewed or adjudged by invoking judicial review

jurisdiction- unless it is shown that policy decision or conditions

prescribed do infringe any of the constitutionally provided

fundamental rights, found deficient in meeting legislative

competence test or manifest erroneous assumption and exercise

of powers/ jurisdiction.

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Regarding splitting of the tendered works, under the law in

vogue to allow small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to participate in

the bidding process, it is imperative to note that in terms of the applicable Rules, there is no specific provision casting such obligation

upon the procuring agency. On the contrary, there is a prohibition

against the splitting of works or regrouping of works that will change

the procurement planning for the year, if any, done by the procuring

agency per Rule 9, of the Rules 2014.

17. At this juncture, it is also worth mentioning that while browsing

legislation from other jurisdictions as well as internationally accepted

principles of procurement, it transpires that the splitting of a contract

for purposes of avoiding the application of procurement regulations

by reducing the value of each of the split components of the contract

has been identified and flagged as a potential means of committing

procurement corruption. Therefore, in academic literature on this

point authors have identified that more often than not contract

splitting is motivated by favouritism than efficiency promoting

motives

8. At the same time legal commentators also recognize that

splitting contracts into lots would promote competition while also

facilitating SME participation in public procurement. There is no one-

size-fits-all solution and the decision has to be made on a case to case

basis depending on the specific characteristics of the market involved.

However, the decision to split or not to split requires a careful

consideration of several factors including the number of economic

operators in the market, the role of new entrants, the risk of collusion

and the trade off between potential competition gains and efficiency

losses

9. A 2014 Directive by the EU obliges contracting authorities to

consider at the planning stage whether to divide a contract into lots.

However, the Directive also includes rules that stipulate that contracts

must not be artificially split in order to avoid the application of public

procurement rules. Article 46 of 2014 EU Directive states that the

contracting authorities are free to decide whether to divide a contract

into lots

10. However, where contracting authority decides not to

divide a contract into lots it must provide the reasons for its decision.

This is called the divide or explain rule. It is imperative to observe that

in many cases it may not be practical or appropriate to split a contract

because dividing the contract between different economic operators

could create unacceptable operational risks. If a decision to divide the

works into lots is taken then the same could be taken on the basis of

geographical division as well as service type division combined with a

value division. The aforesaid principle is also incorporated in the UK

in terms of Section 18 of the UK s Procurement Act, 2023

11, which

states that before publishing a tender notice in respect of a public

contract a contracting authority must consider whether the goods,

services or works to be supplied under the contract could reasonably

be supplied under more than one contract; and if it does consider it to be possible, then it should either arrange for the contract to be

awarded by reference to lots or provide reasons for not doing so. This

is again an incorporation of the principle of divide or explain that is

already present in the EU Directive.

18. While there is no such express provision under the Rules 2014,

Regulation 6(3) of Regulations 2024 does empower the procuring

agency to create LOTS and to specify whether the procurement

transaction is to be made as a whole or item-wise as per its

requirements . In any event, this Court is of the view that the duty to

consider whether the works proposed to be tendered through a

contract could be supplied under more than one contract is implicit in

the obligation under the Rules 2014 to ensure the widest possible

competition.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that

the MCL has not committed any mis-procurement. The present as well

as the connected petition are without any force. However, the above

discussion propels this Court to make following

observations/directions, to all the procuring agencies, across the

province, for the purpose of bringing transparency and fairness in the

procurement process:

(i) It is imperative in terms of Regulation 5 of the Regulations

2024 and Rule 8 of the Rules 2014, that annual development

plan by each procuring agency with respect to the

procurement to be carried out in that fiscal year is devised

within one month of the beginning of fiscal year and the

same must be made public. This would rule out possibility of

tinkering and/or manipulation in any tender at the time of

inviting bids;

(ii) There is an administrative and executive discretion vested in

the procuring agency to formulate and design the

procurement plan by grouping and/or splitting the works for

the purposes of ensuring widest possible competition and

obviating the possibility of favouritism, however, once the

said discretion is exercised, through an annual development

plan, the procuring agencies are obligated to adhere to the

same without splitting and/or regrouping the same in terms

of Rule 9 of the Rules 2014;

(iii) Adherence to Rule 8 of the Rules 2014 as to announcement

of proposed annual procurement plan in a financial year is a

legal obligation which stands as a bar and check upon the

procuring agency to arbitrarily split and/or regroup the subject matter of procurement to tailor-make the same to

extend favouritism; and

(iv) A procuring agency should at least, at the planning stage,

consider splitting of the work when it is tendering the same

that are comprised of different geographical locations and

different types of services/activities; and if it still decides to

group them together in one contract then it should, at a

minimum, state its reasons for doing so. This should be

encouraged as a best practice amongst the procuring

agencies to avoid any such challenges during the

procurement process.

20. Disposed of in above terms.

21. A copy of this judgment be sent to Managing Director, Punjab

Procurement Regulatory Authority to ensure compliance of directions

of this Court.

22. Before parting with the judgment, I wish to acknowledge the

wonderful assistance rendered by Syed Shahab Qutab,

Advocate/Amicus Curiae.

MH/G-4/L Order accordingly.