IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2222 OF 2016  
(On 
appeal 
from 
judgment 
dated 
31.5.2016, passed by the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore, in W.P. No.12535/2016 
and ICA No.1114/2016) 
 
 
M/s. Power Construction Corporation of 
China Limited (previously Sinohydro 
Group 
Limited) 
through 
its 
duly 
authorized 
representative 
Mr. 
Dai 
Daliang, No.22, Chegongzhuang West 
Road Haidian District, Beijing 100048, 
P.R. China, having a Branch Office at 
House No.510, Street No.9, F-10/2, 
Islamabad, Pakistan 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
Pakistan Water & Power Development 
Authority through its Chairman WAPDA 
House, Mall Road, Lahore and 2 others 
  
 
… Respondents 
 
 
For the Petitioner 
: Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR (absent) 
 
  
For Respondents 1-2 
: Mr. Shahzada Mazhar, ASC with 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
Shahzad, Director (Legal) WAPDA and 
Inayat Ali, Chief Engineer, WAPDA 
 
  
For Respondent No.3 
: Rana Waqar Ahmed, DAG 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 25.10.2016 
  
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- This Civil Petition for 
Leave to Appeal is directed against the impugned 
CP No.2222-2016 
2 
judgment dated 29.6.2016, passed by a learned Division 
Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby an 
Intra Court Appeal bearing No.1114 of 2016, filed by the 
present Petitioner against the judgment dated 31.5.2016, 
passed in Writ Petition No.12535 of 2016, was dismissed.  
2. 
 
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the 
lis at hand are that the Petitioner is a Company 
established under the laws of the People’s Republic of 
China, with a place of business/branch office at 
Islamabad. The Petitioner Company was apparently 
established in 1950 and claims experience and expertise 
in the business of the construction of Hydropower 
Projects.  
3. 
 
The Respondent/WAPDA initiated the process 
to establish and construct a Hydropower Project on the 
River Indus at Dasu in the Province of Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa. The said Project is being partially funded 
by the International Development Association (IDA), 
which forms a part of the World Bank Group and, in this 
behalf, a Finance Agreement was executed between the 
Government of Pakistan and the IDA on 25.08.2014. 
Respondent/WAPDA in pursuance of its intention to 
undertake the project published Specific Procurement 
Notices (SPNs) inviting participation in the Project 
CP No.2222-2016 
3 
initially through pre-qualification. The clause (4) of SPNs 
provided that such pre-qualification would be effected 
through “The Procurement of Goods, Works and Non-
Consulting Services under the IBRD loans and the IDA 
Credits & Grants by the World Bank Borrowers” (the 
World Bank Guidelines). Subsequently, in August, 2014 
Respondent No.2 issued Pre-qualification Document 
(PDQ) for ICB No.DASU-MW-02-Procurement of Main 
Works, Main Hydraulic Structure, Spillway and Hydraulic 
Steel Structures (the Main Works-01) and for Hydraulic 
Steel 
Structures 
(the 
Main 
Works-02) 
inviting 
applications from interested parties for the purposes of 
pre-qualification. The Petitioner Company submitted two 
separate applications both dated 28.05.2015 seeking pre-
qualification for the aforesaid Main Works-01 and 02. 
The said applications were processed, with Respondent 
No.2 
i.e. 
General 
Manager/Project 
Director, 
Dasu 
Hydropower Project, WAPDA, seeking clarifications and 
further documentation whereafter the Respondent No.1 
i.e. WAPDA appeared to be satisfied and included the 
name of the Petitioner Company in the list of pre-
qualified bidders and transmitted the said list to the IDA 
as rendered by the World Bank Guidelines. The IDA 
intimated the Respondent No.1/WAPDA to delete the 
CP No.2222-2016 
4 
name of the Petitioner Company from the list of pre-
qualified bidders, purportedly in terms of clause 2(a) of 
the Appendix-I of the World Bank Guidelines.  
4. 
 
In the above backdrop, Respondent No.2 issued 
a disqualification notice dated 12.02.2016 to the 
Petitioner Company with respect to Main Works-01 and 
02. The Petitioner Company approached the Respondent 
No.1/WAPDA 
to 
disclose 
the 
reasons 
for 
such 
disqualification. Upon failure to receive a satisfactory 
reply to its application, in this behalf, the Petitioner 
Company invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the 
learned Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing Writ Petition 
No.6625 of 2016, which was disposed of vide Order dated 
01.03.2016 directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the 
aforesaid pending application of the Petitioner Company 
and to act in accordance with law by affording an 
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner Company. On 
30.03.2016, the Respondent No.2 again held the 
Petitioner Company to be disqualified from the process of 
pre-qualification in view of the directions issued by the 
IDA. The Petitioner Company challenged the aforesaid 
Order 
dated 
30.03.2016 
alongwith 
the 
earlier 
disqualification notice dated 12.06.2016 before the 
learned Lahore High Court through Writ Petition 
CP No.2222-2016 
5 
No.12535 of 2016, which was dismissed vide judgment 
dated 31.05.2016. Whereafter, the Petitioner Company 
filed an appeal i.e. Intra Court Appeal No.1114 of 2016 in 
terms of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, 
which 
was 
also 
dismissed 
vide 
judgment 
dated 
29.06.2016, and the same has been impugned through 
the instant Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal.  
5. 
 
The matter came up for hearing before this 
Court and the notices were issued to the Respondents. 
On 25.08.2016, the learned counsel for the Petitioner 
Company referred to para 12 of the judgment of the 
learned Single Judge, dated 31.05.2016 to indicate the 
existence of a remedy before the World Bank in terms of 
Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Appendix-III to the 
Guidelines and sought time to avail the same. The 
Petitioner Company failed to obtain the desired result. 
6. 
 
It is contended by the learned counsel that the 
Petitioner Company is involved in the business of  
construction of Hydropower Projects for the last more 
than 60 years and has to its credit the construction of 
some of the most iconic projects, in this behalf, including 
the Three Gorges Dams in the People’s Republic of China. 
The Petitioner Company, it is contended, has the 
requisite experience and expertise for the construction of 
CP No.2222-2016 
6 
the Main Works-01 and 02 of the Dasu Hydroelectric 
Power Project. The Petitioner Company submitted its bid 
for pre-qualification, which was complete in all respects 
supported by the relevant and requisite documentation. 
The Respondent No.1/WAPDA and its officials, including 
Respondent No.2 sought various clarifications, which 
were duly provided. Some further documentation was 
required, which too was effected, whereafter Respondent 
No.1/WAPDA and its officials were fully satisfied that the 
Petitioner Company was entitled to pre-qualification and 
informed the Petitioner Company accordingly. The 
subsequent disqualification of the Petitioner Company 
was 
without 
any 
legal 
justification, 
hence, 
not 
sustainable.  
7.  
 
It was urged that pursuant to Article 4(1) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it 
is an inalienable right of every person for the time being 
within Pakistan to be treated in accordance with law, 
including the law as laid down by this Court. 
Furthermore, Article 10-A of the Constitution also 
reinforces equal protection, due process and non-
discrimination. The Petitioner Company is functioning 
within Pakistan and the lis at hand pertains to the award 
of a contract within Pakistan, hence, the Petitioner 
CP No.2222-2016 
7 
Company was entitled to the protection of Articles 4(1) 
and 10-A of the Constitution. It was further contended 
that 
all 
State 
Authorities, 
including 
the 
Respondents/WAPDA and its officials, with regard to 
discharge of their statutory obligations and functions, 
more particularly, administrative nature, including with 
reference to the award of a public contract, are obliged to 
act in a reasonable, fair, transparent, rational, just, non-
arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner. Such is the 
settled law, it is contended, as has been consistently laid 
down by this Court in its various pronouncements. The 
impugned judgment dated 31.05.2016, disqualifying the 
Petitioner Company can by no stretch of imagination, be 
deemed 
to 
be 
fair, 
just, 
transparent 
or 
non-
discriminatory, hence, not sustainable in law. It was next 
contended that paragraph 2(a) of the Appendix-I to the 
World Bank’s Guidelines, at best, only confer upon the 
IDA. The privilege of making “a reasonable request” to 
WAPDA to modify the list of pre-qualified bidders or 
making deletions therefrom. The IDA is not conferred 
with the power or authority to unreasonably dictate, force 
or coerce WAPDA to make such deletion from the list of 
pre-qualified bidders nor is WAPDA bound to blindly 
follow any such direction, which is not reasonable. In the 
CP No.2222-2016 
8 
circumstances, the Respondent/ WAPDA and its officials 
cannot abdicate their Constitutional and Statutory 
Obligations in terms of the Articles 4(1) and 10-A of the 
Constitution to the prejudice and determent of the rights 
of the Petitioner Company. It was next contended that by 
way of the impugned judgments, the learned High Court 
has misconstrued the Guidelines of the World Bank to 
illegally conclude that Respondent/WAPDA and its 
officials are bound by the dictates of the IDA in each and 
every eventuality. It was further contended that by way of 
the impugned judgments, it has been illegally implied 
that the Guidelines override the laws of Pakistan, the 
Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. The 
learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that 
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner 
Company claimed relief against the Respondent/WAPDA 
and its officials so as to ensure that the said Respondents 
acted in accordance with law, as laid down by this Court 
with regard to the award of the contracts. The Order 
dated 30.06.2016 of the Respondent/WAPDA is a clear 
violation of such law and is not sustainable and liable to 
be set aside. The learned High Court, in fact, it is 
contended, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction 
conferred upon it by the Constitution to protect the rights 
CP No.2222-2016 
9 
guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, the impugned 
judgments are liable to be set aside. In support of his 
contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the 
judgments, reported as Habibullah Energy Limited and 
another v. WAPDA through Chairman and others (PLD 
2014 SC 47), Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch and others v. 
Government of Balochistan through Secretary Industries 
and Mineral Development and others (PLD 2013 SC 641), 
Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and 
6 others (PLD 1997 SC 582) and Karachi Building 
Control Authority and 3 others v. Hashwani Sales and 
Services Limited and 3 others (PLD 1993 SC 210).       
8. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 
and 2 controverted the contentions raised on behalf of 
the Petitioner Company by contending that the Dasu 
Hydropower Project is of vital importance for the State of 
Pakistan in view of the current power shortages. The role 
of IDA is critical to the Project at hand. In addition to the 
direct funding of US$ 588.4 million, a Partial Credit 
Guarantee of US$ 460 million has also been provided 
whereagainst loans are being obtained from Commercial 
Banks. In the absence of such funding by the IDA, the 
CP No.2222-2016 
10 
very project would be jeopardized and its construction 
and completion difficult. 
9. 
 
Such funding by the IDA is subject to the 
various conditionalities, including the World Bank 
Guidelines for the award of contracts, including the pre-
qualification 
of 
bidders. 
Such 
conditionalities 
for 
procurement and award of contracts are catered for by 
Rule 5 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, hence, not 
only applicable to the bidding process for the award of 
the contracts but also to the pre-qualification of 
interested bidders. The applicability of the Guidelines of 
the World Bank formed part of the bidding documents 
and were known to the Petitioner Company. 
10.  
It is further contended that the Petitioner 
Company did not possess the requisite experience and 
expertise and attempted to rely, in this behalf, upon some 
allied or sister companies. In such an eventuality, a Joint 
Venture Agreement was a sine qua non as is mentioned in 
the World Bank Guidelines. The Petitioner Company 
chose to file only an Implementation Agreement. It is the 
case of the Respondent/WAPDA that the Petitioner 
Company was aware that such an Implementation 
Agreement alone in the absence of a Joint Venture 
Agreement would not be acceptable in terms of the World 
CP No.2222-2016 
11 
Bank Guidelines as the Petitioner Company had earlier 
filed a similar Implementation Agreement while seeking 
pre-qualification for other World Bank Funded Projects 
i.e. “KKH-2” and RAR-2”, where the Petitioner Company 
was not pre-qualified. Thus, the entire litigation initiated 
by the Petitioner Company is not only without merit but 
also mala fide, hence, no exception can be taken to the 
impugned judgment dated 31.05.2016.  
11.  
It was next contended that the Petitioner 
Company 
was 
conditionally 
pre-qualified 
by 
the 
Respondent/WAPDA and such pre-qualification was 
subject to the provisions of Clause 2(a) of the Appendix-I 
to the said Guidelines. The IDA, in this behalf, exercised 
its privilege to ensure fair and effective interpretation of 
the Project. It was further contended that Clause 2(a) of 
the Appendix-I to the World Bank Guidelines has been 
correctly interpreted by the learned High Court and no 
exception can be taken thereto.  
12.  
Furthermore, in pith and substance, the 
grievance of the Petitioner Company is actually against 
IDA which is not a party to the present proceedings, 
therefore, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner 
Company. Moreover, the IDA/World Bank is not a person 
as defined by Article 199(4) of the Constitution of the 
CP No.2222-2016 
12 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, could not 
be subjected to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the 
learned High Court, as has been correctly held by the 
learned High Court by way of the impugned judgment. It 
was added that there was an alternate remedy, which the 
Petitioner Company could avail in the fullness of time, as 
has been indicated in the impugned judgment of the 
learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Petition being 
without merit was liable to be dismissed. 
13.  
The learned Deputy Attorney General for 
Pakistan supported the impugned judgment. It was his 
case that in pith and substance, the Petitioner Company 
has challenged the decision of the IDA/World Bank, 
which had immunity in view of the provisions of the 
International Monetary Fund and Bank Act, 1950, hence, 
the Constitution Petition was not maintainable and was 
rightly dismissed.  
14.  
In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the 
Petitioner Company has reiterated the arguments by 
contending 
that 
the 
Implementation 
Agreement 
constituted a compliance of the requirement of the 
bidding documents and no reasonable ground existed for 
the disqualification of the Petitioner Company especially 
where another Chinese Company has been pre-qualified 
CP No.2222-2016 
13 
in identical circumstances. He reiterated that it is the 
decision of the Respondent/WAPDA, which has been 
called into question and in the facts and circumstances 
of the case, the demand of IDA to delete the name of the 
Petitioner Company from the list of the proposed pre-
qualified 
bidders 
was 
not 
“reasonable” 
and 
the 
Respondent/WAPDA was obliged by law not to accede to 
the same. Furthermore, in such circumstances, the 
action of the Respondent/WAPDA was justiciable by the 
learned Lahore High Court in the light of the judgments 
relied upon.     
15.  
The learned counsel for the parties and the 
learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan have been 
heard and with their assistance the available record 
perused.  
16.  
Before 
considering 
the 
rival 
contentions 
advanced by the learned counsels from both sides of the 
aisle, it would perhaps be appropriate to contextualize 
the same by referring to the factual backdrop so that the 
real matter in controversy requiring adjudication may be 
brought into sharper focus. A Hydropower Project on the 
river 
Indus 
at 
Dasu 
was 
contemplated 
by 
the 
Respondents. In order to raise funds therefor a Finance 
Agreement was executed between the Government of 
CP No.2222-2016 
14 
Pakistan and IDA an organization, which is an integral 
part of the World Bank Group. Such Agreement was 
executed on 25.08.2014. It contemplated both a direct 
line of credit as well as guarantee whereagainst loans 
could be obtained from Commercial Banks. We are 
informed that some of such loans have been raised, while 
the other such facilities are under process. The IDA is to 
provide a portion of the funds requisite for a rather large 
project for generation of electricity, which is obviously of 
a great importance to the State of Pakistan in this age of 
power shortages. The Finance Agreement contemplated 
that the award of contracts, including the pre-
qualification of the Contractors would be effected through 
a bidding process in terms of the World Bank Guidelines.  
17.  
In terms of the aforesaid Guidelines, the IDA 
was directly involved in the preparation of the bidding 
process. In terms of Para 2(a) of the Appendix-I of the 
Guidelines, the IDA had a right or a privilege of making a 
reasonable request for the modification of or deletions 
from the list of the pre-qualified Contractors. Paragraph 
2(a) is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:  
 “2. 
With respect to all contracts 77 
which are subject to the Bank’s 
prior review:- 
 
CP No.2222-2016 
15 
(a) 
In 
cases 
where 
prequalification 
is 
used, 
the 
Borrowers 
shall 
before 
prequalification submission are 
invited, furnish the Bank with the 
draft documents to be used, 
including the text of the invitation 
to prequalify, the prequalification 
questionnaire, and the evaluation 
methodology, 
together 
with 
a 
description 
of 
the 
advertising 
procedures to be followed and 
shall 
introduce 
such 
modifications in said procedure 
and documents as the Bank shall 
reasonably request. The report 
evaluating 
the 
applications 
received by the Borrower, the list 
of proposed prequalified bidders, 
together with a statement of the 
qualification and of the reason for 
the exclusion or any applicant for 
prequalification, 
shall 
be 
furnished by the Borrower to the 
Bank for its comments before the 
applicants are notified of the 
Borrower’s 
decision, 
and 
the 
Borrower 
shall 
make 
such 
additions to deletion from or 
modifications in the said as the 
bank reasonably requested.”    
 
18.  
The process was commenced in terms of the 
said Finance Agreement and the Guidelines referred to 
above and in this regard Specific Procurement Notices 
were 
issued 
inviting 
interested 
parties 
for 
pre-
qualification. The Petitioner Company participated in the 
said process.  
19.  
It appears from the record that IDA concluded 
that the Petitioner Company had applied on a stand 
alone basis and did not possess the requisite expertise 
and experience for the Project as the experience and the 
CP No.2222-2016 
16 
expertise of the other Companies could not be taken into 
account as such Companies did not join the Petitioner 
Company in seeking pre-qualification in view of the 
absence of an inter se Joint Venture Agreement. Though 
the Respondents No. 1 and 2 suggested that the 
Petitioner Company was entitled to be pre-qualified but 
pursuant to the opinion of the IDA the Petitioner 
Company was disqualified by the Respondent/WAPDA. 
Such disqualification is recorded in the two documents 
dated 12.02.2016 and 13.03.2016.  
20.  
It is in the above background that the Petitioner 
Company invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the 
learned Lahore High Court through Writ Petition, which 
on examination reveals that in essence the aforesaid two 
documents i.e. the Order dated 13.03.2016 and the 
disqualification 
Notice 
dated 
22.02.2016 
of 
the 
Respondent/WAPDA, which have been challenged. It has 
been noticed that the decision of the IDA concluding that 
the Petitioner Company was disqualified was not 
challenged. Even otherwise, the IDA has not been 
impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. 
Furthermore, it is no one’s case that IDA is a “person” as 
contemplated under Article 19(4) of the Constitution, 
susceptible to the jurisdiction of the learned High Court, 
CP No.2222-2016 
17 
in this behalf. The aforesaid leads to an irresistible 
conclusion that the decision of the IDA and the 
conclusion drawn by it, that the Petitioner Company was 
disqualified and not entitled to pre-qualification, was not 
the subject matter of the lis before the learned High 
Court nor this Court.   
21.  
Admittedly, 
the 
IDA 
is 
an 
International 
Financial Institution. It is also not disputed that the 
Finance Agreement has been exceeded between the IDA 
and the Government of Pakistan with respect to the 
Project in question. It is also evident that the Finance 
Agreement provides that the bidding process with respect 
to selection of Contractors for the Project would be 
conducted 
in 
accordance 
with 
the 
World 
Bank 
Guarantees which includes Para 2(a) of the Appendix-I 
thereof. The compliance with such Guidelines is 
contemplated by law of Pakistan, more particular, Rule 5 
of the PPRA Rules, 2004, which is reproduced hereunder 
for ease of reference:- 
“5. 
International 
and 
inter-
governmental commitments of the 
Federal Government. – Whenever these 
rules are in conflict with an obligation or 
commitment of the Federal Government 
arising out of an international treaty or 
an agreement with a State or States, or 
any international financial institution 
the provisions of such international 
CP No.2222-2016 
18 
treaty or agreement shall prevail to the 
extent of such conflict.” 
 
22.  
The main thrust of the arguments of the 
learned counsel for the Petitioner Company is that 
Respondent/WAPDA, in the facts and circumstances of 
the case, should not have accepted the decision/request 
of the IDA to delete the name of the Petitioner Company 
from the list of pre-qualified Contractors as such request 
was not “Reasonable” as envisaged by paragraph 2(a) of 
the Appendix-I of the World Bank Guidelines. While we 
may not be in total agreement with the learned counsel 
for the Petitioner Company yet what is apparent is that 
the Respondent/WAPDA choose not to cross swords with 
the IDA, in this behalf, at the behest of the Petitioner 
Company. It is this decision of the Respondent/WAPDA 
not to agitate the matter with the IDA and to accept and 
comply with its “request” which in fact is the real matter 
in issue requiring adjudication.  
23.  
The question, which floats to the surface is 
whether such a decision by the Respondent/WAPDA can 
be subjected to Judicial Review by the Courts in the 
exercise of their Constitutional Jurisdiction.  
24.  
The Indian Supreme Court was confronted with 
not too dissimilar a situation and held in the judgment, 
CP No.2222-2016 
19 
reported as Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. 
Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. and others [(1997) 1 
Supreme Court Cases 738], as under:- 
“It is well known that it is difficult 
for the country to go ahead with 
such high cost projects unless the 
financial institutions like the World 
Bank or the Asian Development 
Bank grant loan or subsidy, as the 
case may be. When such financial 
institutions grant such huge loans 
they always insist that any project 
for which loan has been sanctioned 
must be carried out in accordance 
with the specification and within the 
scheduled time and the procedure 
for granting the award must be duly 
adhered 
to. 
In 
the 
aforesaid 
premises on getting the valuation 
bids 
of 
the 
appellant 
and 
Respondent 1 together with the 
consultant's opinion after the so-
called 
corrections 
made 
the 
conclusion of the bank to the effect 
"the lowest evaluated substantially 
responsive bidder is consequently 
AFCONS" cannot be said to be either 
arbitrary or capricious or illegal 
requiring court's interference in the 
matter of an award of contract. 
There was some dispute between the 
Bank 
on 
one 
hand 
and 
the 
consultant who was called upon to 
evaluate 
on 
the 
other 
on 
the 
question whether there is any power 
of making any correction to the bid 
documents after a specified period. 
The 
High 
Court 
in 
construing 
certain clauses of the bid documents 
has come to the conclusion that 
such a correction was permissible 
and, therefore, the Bank could not 
have insisted upon granting the 
contract in favour of the appellant. 
We are of the considered opinion 
that 
it 
was 
not 
within 
the 
CP No.2222-2016 
20 
permissible limits of interference for 
a court of law, particularly when 
there has been no allegation of 
malice 
or 
ulterior 
motive 
and 
particularly when the court has not 
found any mala fides or favouritism 
in the grant of contract in favour of 
the appellant.”  
25.   
The 
aforesaid 
passage 
was 
quoted 
with 
approval by this Court in its judgment, reported as Dr. 
Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of 
Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 455), wherein it was 
observed as follows:- 
“Even otherwise, we are living in a 
globalized world of interdependence; a 
world where countries and international 
financial institutions assist and aid the 
developing countries in their march 
towards economic progress. International 
Monitory 
Fund 
is 
one 
of 
those 
institutions which has played its role in 
several countries. Though its policies 
some times may be open to criticism but 
that is for the concerned economists in 
the government or academics to examine 
and opine but once the Competent 
Authority in the government has taken a 
decision backed by law, it would not be 
in consonance with the well established 
norms of judicial review to interfere in 
policy making domain of the executive 
authority.” 
 
 
 
26.  
Developing countries like Pakistan may need to 
invest in a large infrastructure projects to ensure its 
economic and social development. Such projects are 
usually very expensive and may require huge funds 
which may have to be raised through loans. Such loans 
CP No.2222-2016 
21 
may 
be 
obtained 
from 
International 
Financial 
Institutions, which are a reality in today’s world and are 
catered for in the law i.e. International Monetary Fund 
and Bank Act, 1950. 
 
If the loans are obtained from International 
Financial Institutions like the IDA, the same come 
coupled with conditionalities, which includes the mod 
and method of the award of contracts for the Projects and 
the process of pre-qualifications of bidders. Such 
conditionalities are also catered for in the law, as is 
evident from Rule 5 of the PPRA Rules, 2004, reproduced 
herein 
above. 
Thus, 
obviously, 
the 
World 
Bank 
Guidelines, including paragraph 2(a) of the Appendix-I 
thereof and its enforceability and effectiveness are 
contemplated in law.  
27.  
In the instant case, the decision of the IDA to 
pre-qualification of the Petitioner Company and make a 
“reasonable request” for deletion of its name from the list 
of pre-qualified bidders is not the subject matter of the 
instant lis, in as much as, the said decision and request 
by the IDA was not challenged in the Constitutional 
jurisdiction nor was the IDA impleaded as a party to the 
proceedings. In the absence of any finding, in this behalf, 
it 
is 
legally 
impossible 
to 
adjudicate 
upon 
the 
CP No.2222-2016 
22 
reasonableness or otherwise of the “request” by the IDA 
or to determine whether the Respondent/WAPDA was 
obliged to accede to such request. The decision of the 
Respondent/WAPDA not to agitate the matter further 
with the IDA at the behest of the Petitioner Company is 
not too difficult to discern. It appears that a pragmatic 
commercial decision was taken not to jeopardize the 
funding from the IDA and thereby putting the entire 
project at risk. Such decision falls within the realm of the 
Public Policy and the Courts in the exercise of their 
powers of Judicial Review, ordinarily, do not interfere 
therewith and exercise judicial restrain, as has been held 
by this Court not only in the case, reported as Dossani 
Travels Pvt. Ltd and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt) 
Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 SC 1) but also in the 
judgment, reported as Cutting of Trees for Canal 
Widening Projects, Lahore: In the matter of Suo Motu 
Case No.25 of 2009 (2011 SCMR 1743). While we may 
not totally agree with the interpretation of the paragraph 
2(a) of the Appendix-I of the Guidelines, as has been done 
by the learned High Court by way of the impugned 
judgments but such an exercise is not necessary by this 
Court, as in our opinion, the Constitutional Petition filed 
by the Petitioner Company was not maintainable, as it 
CP No.2222-2016 
23 
sought to encroach into the domain of the Policy Matters 
in respect whereof the judicial restrain is to be exercised. 
28.  
Consequently, we are not persuaded to agree 
with the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner 
Company or to set aside the impugned judgments. 
Hence, this Civil Petition is liable to be dismissed and 
leave declined. 
29.  
These are the reasons of our short Order of 
even date, which is reproduced as under:- 
 
“Learned ASCs for the parties and 
learned Addl.AG have concluded their 
arguments. For reasons to be recorded 
separately, leave is refused and the 
petition is dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
 
   
 
 
      Judge 
25th October, 2016 
‘NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Safdar & Mahtab