2008  PLD  472     SUPREME-COURT

PETROSIN CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD

Versus

MOL PAKISTAN OIL AND GAS CO

 

O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Suit for declaration and application for grant of permanent injunction—Grant of license for processing of Oil and Gas on invitation of tenders—Pre-qualifications of parties—Submitting documents—Contentions of the petitioners were that process of awarding contract excluding the petitioners was not transparent; was without giving opportunity of hearing to them and malice had been shown by awarding contract to some picked persons at the cost of ‘public exchequer and prayed that permanent injunction be granted and the process in question be declared as illegal, void, without authority or jurisdiction and based on mala fide—Validity—Petitioners’ certificate of quality management system `ISO 9000′ was valid for one year and had lapsed at the time of submission of their .pre-qualification documents; they got their certificate renewed after two months of the date fixed for submission of said documents—Effect—In absence of any valid/renewed certification, the documents of petitioners were rightly rejected by the Authorities—Contention of petitioners that they were not provided opportunity of hearing had no merit as a self-contained letter giving reasons for regret on behalf of the Authorities was sent to the petitioners—Tendering process for the project was completed and the contract was awarded to the party which was reduced in writing and was now under performance; petitioners had not claimed any relief against the said party which had invested a huge amount in that respect—Any injunction to ‘bring back everything to stand still would be unlawful and prejudicial to party’s vested rights under the contract lawfully executed, which was now in the process of implementation—Petitioners, who were ousted from the process of pre-qualification on the basis of lawful grounds would not suffer any irreparable loss as compared to the party getting contract in whose favour legitimate rights had been created under the contract; similarly balance of convenience also leaned in favour of the said party—Injunction could only be granted restraining the defendants from committing breach of some concluded contract or other injury of any kind but in the present case, there was no contract in favour of petitioners, as such the question of breach of contract did not arise—Concurrent findings of the courts below did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by Supreme Court—Petitioners had failed to point out that decision taken by the Authorities lacked transparency or was tainted with mala fide or was unfair or was based on favouritism—Grant of injunction was rightly refused to the petitioners in circumstances–Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court.