' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed order/judgment, dated 30-10- 2007 and 17-11-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad whereby application of the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction and their appeal were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly relevant facts, as deciphered from the record, are that petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the claim that they have vast experience/expertise in Oil and Gas Industry as they had been providing engineering/manufacturing services to the Oil and Gas sector within Pakistan and outside the country. Petitioners further pleaded that they have already completed major contracts worth of millions of US Dollars with the Oil and Gas Limited Company and others. According to them, Government of Pakistan has granted a license to a consortium consisting of five companies, namely, Messrs Oil and Gas Development Limited Company (OGDC), Pakistan Oil Fields Limited (POL), Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL), Government Holding (Pvt.) Limited (GHL) and MOL Pakistan Oil and Gas Company, for petroleum exploration in TAL Block in N.-W.F.P. All these members of the consortium entered into a joint venture agreement whereafter they have discovered petroleum at Manzalai and are in the process of setting up Gas Processing Facilities at this gas field. The members of the consortium in order to set up a Central Processing Facility for gathering system for the Manzalai Gas Field; invited different entities for pre- qualification of engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning contractors through press publication 30-4-2007. Plaint filed by the petitioners goes on further to detail that they through electronic mail on 2-5-2007 desired to participate in the Pre-qualification and tendering process for the Project above named and consequently requested issuance of pre-qualification documents. They claimed to have submitted their pre-qualification documents along with a bank draft of US 1000$ for processing fee. It was also asserted by the petitioners that the joint venture partners acknowledged of their documents but did not respond till 25-7-2007 when the petitioners were conveyed that they have not qualified for EPCC stage of the Manzalai Project, on account of noncompliance with the prescribed criteria for pre-qualification. Petitioners attached letter, dated 25-7-2007 being sketchy/unreasoned and having been passed at their back, without providing them an opportunity of hearing. They attributed malice to the members of the consortium with the claim that petitioners are being unlawfully excluded from the contest to award the contract to some hand picked person at the cost of public exchequer. According to the petitioners, the process for awarding of the contract being adopted by the joint venture partner was not transparent and some of their favorites were being allegedly prized with the contract in flagrant violation of equitable/legal obligations. Petitioners also -detailed their past performance in the field of Oil and Gas exploration to emphasize that they have much more experience as compared to their competitors and their rates had been much law to the others who are available in the market. They prayed that letter, dated 25-7-2007 excluding the petitioners to participate in the tendering process for Manzalai Field Development Surface Facilities Project and gathering system at Tal Block, Kohat (N.-W.F.P.) may be declared as illegal, void, based on mala fides, without lawful authority and jurisdiction. A prayer in form of mandatory injunction was also made for participation of the petitioners in the above-referred process. Petitioners also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying issuance of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the tendering process or entering into any contract, without their participation.
3. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing their written statement and raised a number of preliminary objections. They also opposed grant of temporary injunction by filing written reply to the application filed by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. Defence of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 was that petitioners did not fulfil the pre-requisites for pre-qualification, inter alia, they were not holders of certificate 'ISO 9000' at the time of submission of pre-qualifications request. Stance of the respondents was also that petitioners failed to comply with the conditions laid down in different paragraphs of the pre-qualification questionnaire and they instantly intimated the result to the petitioners. On the basis of insufficient expertise according to Item No,2 of the pre-qualification criteria, it was urged that injunction prayed may be refused.
4. Learned. Civil Judge seized of the matter, after hearing the parties and examining the record available, dismissed the application of the petitioners vide his order, dated 30-10-2007.
5. Petitioners were not satisfied with the dismissal of their application for grant of temporary injunction and consequently filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad but-remained unsuccessful, as the same was also dismissed on 17-7-2007. Thereafter, they filed instant revision petition for adjustment of concurrent orders/judgments of the two Courts below. Since during the interregnum period a contract was assigned to respondent No,6, this Court had directed impleadment of this party, as it was bound to be affected by any injunctive order of this Court and was consequently arrayed as one of the respondents. All the respondents in response to notice by this Court, appeared and were presented through their respective counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly petitioners had forwarded their documents to compete the pre- qualification advertised by the consortium of OGDC, POL, PPL. Government Holding (Pvt.) Limited and MOL the Companies, under a license issued in their favour by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, for exploration of Oil and Gas in, Tal Block in N.-W.F.P.
And petitioners were found not equipped with present pre-qualification criteria. It is not denied by the petitioners that their certificate of quality management system 'ISO 9000' was valid forgone year and had lapsed at the time of submission of their pre-qualifications documents with the.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 which was got renewed two months after the last date fixed for submission of pre-qualification documents i,e, 21-5-2007. In absence of any valid/renewed ISO 9000, certification relied as similar/ equivalent certificate by the learned counsel for the petitioners for competing the pre-qualification was not enough as this document was not accepted/admitted by the respondents and it only authorized the Petrosin Ravi Industry Limited to use symbol of ASME.
Petitioners in their letter, dated 16-7-2007 admitted that their ISO 9000 certification has already expired and their admission in this behalf is in following words:-- "It would also be pertinent to mention here that our ISO 9000 certification is expected to be renewed by the end of July, 2007 and we will submit the certification accordingly on receipt."
7. In view of their admitted position, stance of learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not provided an opportunity of hearing earlier to the issuance of letter, dated 25-7-2007 or it is sketchy/unreasoned, looses substance. Even otherwise letter, dated 25-7-2007 is self contained and gives reasons for regret on behalf of the consortium; that due to non compliance with their pre set pre-qualification criteria Petrosin has not been able to successfully qualify for the EPCC stage of the project. According to my assessment, no other reason could be mentioned in this letter conveying to the petitioners that they were not successful to compete the pre-qualification prayed. Non-holding of certification ISO 9000, was enough to hold that the petitioners had no prima . Facie arguable case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction prayed.
' Another matter, which clinches the dispute, is that on 17-11-2007 respondents Nos. 1 to 5 after dismissal of petitioners appeal while proceeding with the tendering process for Manzalai Project underwent the tendering process and awarded the contract to respondent No,6. Terms of the contract were settled and accepted by the parties to the contract, which was reduced to writing on 17-11-2007, and is now under performance. Petitioners have not claimed any relief against respondent No,6 who was impleaded as respondent to the civil revision by this Court and assertively claimed that it has expended huge amount in performance of the contract in their favour, including arrangement of the bank guarantee of 1.7 million, arranging insurance of 7-00 million, incidental expenditure at the site of the wroth of Rupees 300 million besides incurring expense of the employees running into 2.5 million daily. The Contractor/respondent No,6 is of the view that any injunction to bring back everything to standstill from any date earlier to the contract in its favour will be unlawful and prejudicial to his vested rights accrued under the contract lawfully executed, which is now in the process of implementation. It all shows that petitioners who were only ousted from the process of pre-qualification on the basis of lawful reasons, would not suffer any irreparable loss/injury as compared to the party i,e, respondent No,6 in whose favour the legitimate rights have been created under the contract. Likewise, balance of convenience also leans in favour of respondent No,6 and there is no likelihood to suffer any inconvenience by the petitioner who had simply wished to participate in the tendering process by submitting their pre-qualification documents.
8. Petitioners moved the application in hand under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Whereunder injunction can only be issued restraining the defendants from committing breach of some concluded contract or other injury of any kind under such contract. Since there was no contract in favour of the petitioners, question of breach of contract did not arise hence they could not maintain any application, like the one declined by the two Courts below. Similarly, section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 mandates that an injunction may be issued to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, whether express or implied. According to this provision of law, a plaintiff can maintain a cause before the Court when defendant invades or threatens to invade his right. In this case neither any contract was entered with the petitioners nor their any right was invaded or threatened by the respondents, consequently, relief of injunction was correctly refused by the Courts below. It goes without commenting that controversy canvassed by the petitioners related to a project pertaining to exploration of oil/gas, in which field, our country is already under stress and facing acute shortage of this energy. It is to the knowledge of even a layman in the street that prices of oil/gas in the international market are so high that those had never been at this level in the past and prices thereof in our country are being subsidized by the Government, out of public exchequer. In case injunction prayed is issued, exploration of oil/gas will further be delayed and would tax monetary resources of the country. The exploration under way is in the interest of public at large and hampering it, by issuing injunction prayed, will not be in the interest of anybody living in this country.
9. From the above resume of ouster of the petitioners from tendering process on the basis of their involvement in litigation inspite of their securing 70% marks, it is enough to hold that there is an attachment of a document showing that petitioners could only secure 64% marks and this is not the stage to determine as to how and why this decrease took place because it involves exercise of recording of evidence which shall be done by the trial Court at the time of decision of suit, after recording of evidence. Be that as it may, involvement of the petitioners in litigation is admitted and it was held to be valid reason to keep such party away from participating in the tendering process, by the Apex Court in the case Messrs Ittehad Cargo Service and 2 others v. Messrs Syed Tasneem Hussani Naqvi and others (PLD 2001 SC 116).
10. Scan of record and impugned orders reveal that controversy was correctly decided by the two Courts below because there was no prima facie/arguable case in favour of the petitioners; they will not suffer any irreparable loss/injury and balance of convenience was also not in their favour. None of the Courts below committed any factual/legal error amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence no case for interference in concurrent orders of the Courts below was made out and consequently, instant revision petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.