KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed a suit against the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) to restrain it from opening bids for contract of printing and distribution of utility bills. A single bench of the SHC comprising Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry in a written order released on Tuesday dismissed the suit against the KMC.
According to the order of the court, the plaintiff was awarded a contract dated 24-02-2017 by the KMC (defendants) for providing services of printing and distribution of utility bills. The contract was to expire on 28-02-2020.
Nearing the expiry of the contract, however, KMC, by letter dated 14-01-2020, communicated to the plaintiff that the competent authority extended his contract up to 30-06-2020. The plaintiff accepted the KMC’s offer to extend the contract up to 30-06-2020. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s contract was again extended up to 30-09-2020, then up to 30-01-2021, and lastly up to 30-04-2021 vide letter dated 01-02-2021.
However, the KMC published a notice dated 07-02-2021 inviting fresh tenders for procuring same services, where bids are to be submitted on 03-03-2021 at 3:00pm and are to be opened the same day at 3:30pm, the order stated.
The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the case required interpretation of clause 11 of the contract dated 24-02-2017 and contended this clause was unambiguous and entailed an extension of the contract for two years up to 27-02-2022, and in view thereof, no fresh tenders can be called by the KMC.
The counsel for the KMC submitted that the KMC was bound by the Sindh Local Council (Contract) Rules, 2016 which mandated that in the procurement of goods, works and services, the provisions of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010 shall be followed; and for a contract exceeding a certain expense, tenders had to be called by way of public notice.
He contended that the last extensions of the plaintiff’s contract had stipulated that the contract was being extended till a certain date or till the finalization of fresh tender, whichever was earlier, and the plaintiff had accepted the condition.
The court observed that the first extension of contract vide letter dated 14-01-2020 was unqualified and which was accepted by the plaintiff without prejudice to his suit as noted in the order dated 05-03-2020. But then, the last extension vide letter dated 01-02-2021 had stipulated that it was up to 30-04-2021 “or till the finalization of fresh tender, whichever is earlier”. Such term of extension of contract was accepted by the plaintiff without demur, and thus clause 11 of the contract appears to have been superseded, the bench observed.
The bench ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or a case of irreparable harm for the grant of a temporary injunction and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the municipal corporation.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.