Jurisdiction of Procurement Authority After Execution of Agreement.
 |
2026 clc 54اتھارٹی کا دائرہ اختیار اور کنٹریکٹ کے بعد تنازعات |
پس منظر
عدالت کا مؤقف
ثالثی کی اہمیت
نتیجہ
قانونی سبق
Must tead judgement
2026 CLC 54
[Peshawar]
Before Ijaz Anwar and Syed Arshad Ali, JJ
Messrs HASHIR SURGICAL SERVICES through Chief Executive Asghar Ali Shah,
University Road, Peshawar-Petitioner
Versus
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA PUBLIC PROCUREMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR and others --Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2124-P of 2021 with IR, decided on 5th November, 2024.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (XI of 2012)--
S. 35-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Grievance Redressal Rules, 2017, R. 7-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.9-Procurement contract-Enforcement /interpretation of the agreement---Contractual disputes post-execution-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority ('Authority'), adjudicatory powers of Scope-Petitioner/Company challenged the validity of the order issued by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority ('Authority'), which returned the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction stating that it (Authority) was confined to regulating public procurement processes-Validity-Although S. 35 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, jurisdiction upon the Authority to entertain and adjudicate appeals filed by aggrieved persons concerning any decision or omission in addressing grievances related to the procurement of goods, services or works ensuring a mechanism for redressal, thereby promoting accountability and transparency in the public procurement process, yet it becomes evident that the Authority's jurisdiction is confined to regulating public public procurement processes and once a procurement contract is formally executed between the procuring entity and the successful bidder, any disputes arising thereafter concerning the interpretation or enforcement of the agreement fall outside the Authority's purview-The Act 2012 contains no provision granting the Authority the power to entertain appeals related to contractual disputes post-execution-When statutory jurisdiction is conferred upon an authority or executive body, the provisions conferring such powers must be strictly construed-Any forum constituted under the law is limited to exercising only the jurisdiction explicitly granted by the statute-The authority cannot assume jurisdiction through inference or conjecture beyond the clear language of the law--Accordingly, any action taken outside the ambit of the statutory story framework would be without lawful authority-The Authority, established under the Act 2012, serves as an appellate dispute resolution forum pursuant to S.35 of the Act, 2012 and R.7 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Grievance Redressal Rules, 2017 ('the Rules 2017); its powers are strictly derived from the Act and its associated Rules-It is neither a court nor authorized to issue judgments as defined in 5.2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, the Authority cannot render judgments in rem or declare general rights and liabilities-Under R.7 of the 2017 Rules, it is limited to reviewing the decisions sions of of procuru procuring entities for compliance with the provisions of the Act of 2012, acting as a regulator of public procurement-In said sense, the jurisdiction of an authority jurisdiction of an authority established under the Act, 2012 is limited-Upon a meticulous examination of the Contract Agreement executed between the parties, a Clause (No.27) explicitly stipulated a dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration---Accordingly, the petitioner had the option to invoke this mechanism for the resolution of its grievances-However, given the limited jurisdictional scope of the Authority under the Act, 2012, the grievances raised by the petitioner fell outside the purview of the Authority's adjudicatory powers and could not be entertained through the statutory appeal process---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. imited to reviewing a
WSKB Operator Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. National Highway Authority through Chairman and 20 others 2023 MLD 674 ref.
Muhammad Taif Khan and Muhammad Arsalan Sareer for Petitioner.
Waqar Orakzai, Additional Advocate General along with Sana Ullah, Assistant Director, KPPRA for Respondents..