RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by Sindh High Court judgment, dated 29-9-2004 allowing constitutional petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 seeking a declaration that the action of the petitioner-Corporation to scarp the tender inviting bids for supply of non-segregated running scrap was illegal and without lawful authority and for a direction to issue necessary letter of award in respect of aforesaid tender to the highest bid of the private respondents.
2. Petitioner management on 10-10-1996 invited bids for sale of non-segregated running scrap through print media, which were actually opened on 31-10-1996. Private respondents were the highest bidders. However, petitioner-Corporation instead of accepting or rejecting the same scrapped the tenders by invoking clause (q) (wrongly written as (s) in plain copy of the letter placed on record) of the tender documents. Stance of the private respondents before the High Court was that the petitioner-Corporation acted unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily by not accepting their bid and not issuing letter of award to them without assigning any valid reason for such action. A Division Bench of the High Court, through the judgment impugned in this petition allowed the writ petition and declared the action of the petitioner-Corporation as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is as against this judgment that the petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved.
' 2-A. We have heard Mr. M.G. Dastgir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner while Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Advocate-on-Record has entered caveat on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
3. It is inter alia, contended that there was a mere offer for supply of certain commodity by Pakistan Steel Mills, which did not mature into a proposal and, in any event, it was not accepted by the petitioner, therefore, there was no concluded contract between the parties. On such premise it is urged that the respondents did not acquire any legal or vested right for enforcement before the High Court through a constitutional petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution. It is strenuously contended that no legal right having accrued in favor of the respondents, they could not be termed to be aggrieved persons within the purview of the expression used in Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, their petition before the High Court was incompetent and not maintainable. Reference has been made to be precedent of this Court reported as City School (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Privatisation Commission 2002 CLD 1158, which, prima facie, supports the submissions of the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate on Record for the caveators, we are inclined to grant leave to consider, inter alia, the questions whether the High Court was legally justified and under a legal duty to exercise its jurisdiction for the enforcement of a right as claimed by the respondents and whether they could be said to be aggrieved persons by withdrawal of the invitation for tender on the part of the petitioner-Corporation? Order accordingly.