ORDERIFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, J.- This mini-trade war rages over supplying of a mini- liquified Petroleum Gas Plant to Oil and G&s Development' Corporation (OGDC), a corporation set up under the aegis of Oil and Gas Corporation Ordinance, 1961. The plant is to be installed at an OGDC operated oil-field in Fimkassar, a small village located in the back-yard of Punjab in the District of Chakwal about 60 K.Ms. Away from Islamabad.
2. OGDC successfully struck oil in Fimkassar. But when oil is recovered from earth, it does not come out alone; with it comes gas also. The more affluent ' flare it away but the less plentiful put it to a better use by compressing and filling it in gas cylinders to be burnt in homes. About Rs. 4 lacs worth of gas was (and is) going up in flames every day at Fimkassar and the OGDC planned to adopt the second option. As out-put projections warranted a mini-LPG Plant only, theOGDC invited bids in January 1993, from Manufacturers/Stockists of the eligible source countries for supply of Mini-LPG Plants. The invitation to bid (Annexure "A") for convenience, is reproduced here:- "INVITATION TO BID FOR PROCUREMENT OF MINI LPG PLANT.
1. Sealed technical and financial proposals are hereby invited under International Competitive Bidding Procedure from the Manufacturers/Stockists of the Eligible Source Countries for supply, of MINI LPG PLANT.
2. The proposals must be irrevocable based on from FOB and C&F Karachi by sea. Prices should remain valid for at least 120 days from the date of opening of Tender.
3. The bidders are required to submit a bid bond alongwith commercial proposal in shape of Bank Guarantee, Pay Qrder. Demand Draft of Cash Deposit to the extent of 2% (Two percent) of total C&F value of the bid, valid for 150 days, as per tender documents and furnish a certificate with technical proposal that the required bid bond is submitted.
4. The successful bidders will be required to furnish a performance Bank Guarantee to the extent of 10% of total contract value as per tender documents.
5. The sealed technical & financial proposals alongwith technical literature must be dropped in the sealed tender box kept in the Office of Dy. Chief Procurement (Foreign), Oil and Gas Development Corporation, Building No.l4-Q, Markaz F.8, Islamabad (Pakistan), on or before March 15, 1993 upto 1030 hours,. Pakistan Standard Time (deadline for submission proposals).
6. The sealed technical proposal for the subject material will be opened on March 15, 1993 at 1130 hours in presence of the bidders or their authorised representatives who may wish to attend the bid opening. The financial proposals whose technical whose technical proposals have been accepted will be opened on the date and time decided upon and announced.
"3. A dozen concerns responded to OGDC invitation and submitted bids on two envelope system; one containing the Tp.Rhnir.Al Proposals and the second, the Commercial Proposals. The OGDC was to process the Technical Proposals first, and commercial proposals were, thereafter, to be confined to only those bidders who would pre-qualify on the basis of technical proposals. March 15,1993 dead-line for submission of bids was extended to 29, April, 1993 when the bids for technical proposals were opened in the presence of parties. The evaluation of bids resulted in rejection of all bids excepting those of,M/S Semba Wang Singaporeobjections or comments were received from M/S PRESSON on the criteria for evaluation of responsiveness of the three bidders until commercial bids were opened and prices were known."In paragraph 4, it was stated thus: "4. Referring to the technical and engineering capability of M/S Petrosin it is to be stated that M/S Petrosin have been a supplier of various processing plants to OGDC for several years and there is no evidence to justify PRESSON'S statement of Petrosin not having in- house engineering capability...."After mentioning names of various manufacturers which M/S Petrosin had advised the OGDC to be banking upon, the report says:"All the above manufacturers by Petrosin are well known manufacturers of International Standing and repute having more than 10 years experience.
"5. This report probably did not satisfy the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources (here-in- after, the Ministry) and quite an inquest followed wherein OGDC sought, during October-December, 93 considerable clarifications from Petrosin about its inception, its capabilities and standing. While OGDC was carrying out this exercise, the Ministry by a letter dated 6.11.1993 (Annexure "D3" with rejoinder) asked the OGDC that since M/S Petrosin was not qualified in terms of tender enquiry, the OGDC "may not award the contract to M/S Petrosin under these circumstance.
" The OGDC was advised:"If not barred by the tender procedures, OGDC may consider the next lowest, technically qualified bidder to avoid delay which would be involved in re-tendering."OGDC in response to this directive informed the Ministry vide letter dated15.11.1993 about 10 years experience of Petrosin and stated that Petrosin was listed among OGDC preferred vendors which formed part of Fimkassar tender documents and advised the Ministry: "Since Petrosin is supplying major manufactured equipment of suitable vendors having 10 years of manufacturing experience, and it is also pre-qualified for pressure vessels as per tender documents and also being commercially lowest bidder, it cannot be legally debarred for award of contract for Fimkassar LPG Plant. Under such circumstances, retendering cannot be applied legally, and if this exercise is undertaken, there is likelihood for delay of at least one year in the installation 6f Fimkassar LPG Plant."6. The Secretary of the Ministry, in order to stop this internecine war constituted a committee consisting of Joint Secretary (Dev), D.G. (Gas),D. G.(PC), Chairman OGDC and Executive Director (EP) OGDC. The committee unanimously decided to award the contract to M/S Petrosin vide report dated 26.1.1994 (R.III with the written statement filed by respondent No.2) which reads as:Petroleum and Natural Resources (Iftekhar Hussain Chaudhary, J).Confidential Islamabad 26th January 1994A committee constituted by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources consisting of J.S. (Dev) DG (Gas), DG PC, Chairman OGDC and Executive Director (E&P) OGDC reviewed the working paper; prepared by OGDC (copy attached), ITB documents, original offers of the two bidders M/S Presson and Petrosin and letters of OGDC to M/S Presson advising them to match their bid price to that of the lowest evaluated bidder without any change in the scope of work as given in their bid in line with the ITB requirement and thereof the response of M/S Presson.2. J.S. (Dev) stated his doubts about the eligibility of petrosin (which was to supply some 10 to 15 per cent of the equipment) since it did not have the minimum, stipulated manufacturing experience. The representatives of OGDC categorically stated that Petrosin was eligible since it was included in the "preferred List of Vendors" in the ITB documents and therefore the company is considered to have met the technical specifications.3. 4. #tbs5. Bidder.
6. Jehangir Bashir Dr. Gulfraz Ahmad7. J.S. (Dev)
Chairman OGDC8. Muneer Ahmad Arif Kemal9. DG (Gas) Shahid Ahmed DG PC ED (E&P) OGDC10. 7.
The Ministry refused to oblige and advised the OGDC to award the contract to second lowest bidder vide letter dated 26.12.1993 (R/V), and later by a letter dated 15.2.1994 (R-V/5) virtually ordered that "OGDC should negotiate and award the contract to the second lowest bidders but eligible company, M/S Presson of Canada. Feeling the squeeze, OGDC invited M/S Presson to11. 12. #tbe13. In view of the above the committee unanimously agreed with OGDC's view that M/S Presson failed to match their bid price to that of lowest evaluated bidder without change of scope of work and that M/S Petrosin, vide their telex No.PET/7116 dated December, 31, 1993 have confirmed that they shall place order for pressure vessels in accordance with OGDC tender and that a manufacturer meeting OGDC's acceptance and Petrosin will obtain OGDC's approval before placement of this order the contract for the supply of LPS plant for Fimkassar be awarded to M/S Petrosin, the lowest evaluatedrenegotiate the' terms and conditions of the contract in order to match the price quoted by M/S Petrosin. Negotiations followed, minutes whereof are placed with the petition and M/S Presson offered a discount of USS 135,000 to OGDC. While this was going on in the cool offices of OGDC, M/S Petrosin filed writ petition No.164/94 in this Court seeking intervention in the matter. Interim relief was granted on 73.1994 hi terms; that the contract might not be awarded to any party if fait accompli had not occurred till then. Later the writ petition was disapproved of with-the following order on 73.1994:"Dispute in this Constitutional petition arises out of thq. Proceedings for grant of contract, for. Installation of a mw--LPG plant at Flmkassar, 60 miles towards South Cast from Rawalpindi which contract is to be granted by 1he respondent No,2, after the receipt of various bids and processing thereof, presently there are two bidders left in the filed, namely the petitioner and the respondent No3 who are contesting for grant of the aforementioned contract.
2. Before a final decision could be No.1,2 inthe matter, the petitioner filed this. Constitutional Petition claiming therein that he having offered the lowest rate'is entitled tp,the grant of contract in question and: respondents No.1,2 have no lawful authority to the grant of the same to respondent No3 who had offered higher rates.
3. After filing: of replies by plc' respond rejoinder thereto preliminary arguments have been heartf ..During the course of arguments it has been admitted by the learned Counsel for both the parties and is also clear frqm the original record produced before me, that issue of grant4. In view of the above factual position after arguing this case at some length under instructions from their clients, learned counsel for all the parties agree and pray that issue of grant ofi contract the question shall be finally decided by the competent authority within three weeks w.e.f today, after giving full opportunity of heating to the parties, who may raise all the objections/cohtcntions available to them under the law including the objections/contentions which hayg been raised in the pleadings of the present ConstUufionalilPutition, orally and if they so desire in writing as well, Order accordingly. Writ petition stands disposed of decided in the above terms. As the main Writ Petition has been fully decided/disposed of, stay order -granted by this Court vide order dated 07/03/1994 stands vacated,- Sd/- idUBGE*:8. r After the decision of Writ'Petition .No! 164 qf t99^'."a 'five-member committee was constituted to decide the issue in'terms of the order, of this Court. The report of the committee, at page 42-50 of the petition favoured(a) To gloss over this issue and to set new ground rules by inviting fresh bids from only these two companies without defining the parameters is not correct.(b) "Clause 23 of tender document clearly states that" Manufacturers of the goods being quoted must have at least 10 years experience in the designing and manufacturing of the items. Documents in support of the above must be submitted with the bid.(c) According to OGDC, M/S Petrosin would manufacture 10-15% of the critical components (e.g pressure vessels) of the LPG plant Petrosin did not have the prescribed experience. The list of plant Petrosin provided to OGDC (after opening of the bids) did not show a single complete LPG plant. Although it was included in the list of preferred vendors which was an annexure to the main document it did not meet the basic eligibility criteria described above even if it is given the benefit of the period when it was a division of another company.(id) Petrosin confessed (during discussions) that Clause 23 of the bid document was not complied. However, they presumed that it was not required as their name was included in the "preferred vendor list." Documents in support were not presented.(e) Petrosin had supplied three dehydration plants (which simply remove associated water from gas). The plants are not classified as Hydrocarbon Processing Plants which include LPG plants also.(f) The evaluation should not be based on only summary rejection criteria. Other instructions to bidders should also be followed strictly.. Sd/- * (Khurshid Anwar) Deputy Secretary (D) Member27.6.1994. "In pursuance of the report OGDC notified award of contract to M/S Petrosin in accord with clause 27 of Section V of the Tender Documents/Instructions to, Bidders, by a Fax dated 18.7.1994 (R/VI1I). M/S Petrosin submitted Bank guarantee/performance Bond; and contract according to written statement by OGDC stood awarded.8. This is the history of events forming back-drop for filing the present Writ Petition by M/S PRESSON Manufacturing Ltd. OGDC-cespondent No. 2 and M/S Petrosin-respondent No3 filed written statements. M/S PRESSON filed rejoinders to the written statements and thereafter the petition was heard in motion. Learned counsel for respondent submitted some additional documents/letters during arguments which have been placed on record. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted specimen tender documents. These tender documents consist of nine sections. Section-1 deals with introduction. Section-IIPetroleum and Natural Resources (Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhary, J) "gives Design Basis. Section III is about Process and Utility Systems. Section-IV is regarding detailed scope of work. Section-V contains instructions to bidders. Section-VI is about Commercial Proposal Section Vll gives specifications and also contains list of vendors for critical equipment. Section-VIII are drawings and Section-IX contains Annexure "A" which is proforma of schedule of requirement/bill of quantity. For purpose of this petition Section-V containing Instructions to Bidders (hereafter, ITB) is relevant. Clause 2 of Section- V prescribes eligibility requirements and reads as:-2.1 The bidder must be a national of country maintaining bilateral trade relations with Pakistan.22 Material and equipment to be supplied under the contract must be produced in and supplied from a country maintaining bilateral trade relations with Pakistan.23 Manufacturer of the goods being quoted must have at least 10 years experience in the designing and manufacturing of the items. Documents in support of the above must be submitted with the bid.2.4 Local agents of the Foreign suppliers must be registered with the office of Imports and Exports, Government of Pakistan and they must submit photo-copy of valid Registration alongwith their bid.Clause 17 relates to modification, of bids. Clause 19 is about determination of responsiveness and reads as:-19.1 After opening the bids, the purchaser will determine whether each bid is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding Documents.19.2 For the purpose of this clause, a substantially responsive bid is one which conforms to all the terms and conditions of the Bidding documents without material deviation. A material deviation is one' which being inconsistent with the bidding documents, affects in any substantial way the scope, quality or prescribed delivery schedule or which limits in any substantial way, the purchaser's rights or the bidder's obligations under the contract.193 ......__________________ ...19.4 The purchaser may waive any minor non-conformity or irregularity in a bid which does not constitute a material deviation, provided that the. Waiver does not prejudice or affect the relative standing order of anybidder.Clause 23 is about bid evaluation and award of contract and reads as:23.1 For the purpose of determining the lowest evaluated bid, factors other than price, such as guaranteed delivery period, direct installation costs, reliability and efficiency of the equipment, financial standing ofthe bidder. Avaitabjlity of service and spare parts, proximity of bidder's repair facilities e t c will be taken into consideration.#tbsiiii#tbe#tbsi.-rm#tbekw. ;c' 233; Tim company shall inform the successful bidder of its intent to enter; ' into a contract. The contract shaU be executed subject to the satisfactory negotiation of the terms and conditions of the contract.Clause 27 is about Notification of award and toads as: lUi' ' '-'h '27.1 Not later than expiration of the period of bid validity prescribed in bidding Documents, successful bidder will be notified in writing that " his bid has been accepted. The Notification of award will constitute the formation of contract, unsuccessful bidders that their bids have273 Upon the successful bidder's furnishing of a performance Bond/Bank Guarantee, the purchaser will promptly notify the unsuccessful - bidders that their bids havebeen unsuccessful and will return their bid.Srnsb .Sa;. ,y bonds.Clause 29 is regarding signing of contract. ' '' Clause 30 prescribesrCriteria For Summary Rejection (Commerdal) as well as Criteria for Summary Rejection (Technical) and sub clause 14 reads as14.
Full details with complete address of hydrocarbon proceeding plants 1 and equipment supplied by the bidder during the last five (5) years.Second part of Section V lays down conditions of contract and is not relevant for 1 the purpose of this petition because the moot point herein is the award of contract and hot the contract itself. Section VI is about Comthercial proposal. Rest of the tender documents are not relevant for the controversy;1 ^ ;9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that OGDC is a statutory corporation established under Oil & Gas Corporation Ordinance, 1961 and is amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and by virtue of ; Sub Section (3) of Section 4 of the Ordinance, the Federal Government can give directions or instructions on question of policy to Board of Directors of OGDC, it was further submitted that Instructions to Bidders contained in tender documents have the force of statutory rules as these were issued in' consultation or under instructions of the Government and as such were binding on the OGDC and the parties concerned. He has further submitted that deviation from the terms of .Inita^icML'.Th.,^d''Pt. Lusitfutfioiis to bidders is not pernjiissible and is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. Enlarging this argument, learned counsel has stated that Clause 23 of ITB was mandatory provision and respondent No. 3 bid not fulfil it and as such was not eligible to submit bid and its bid should have been rejected under the Criteria Tor Summary ^ RejetUidU^According to die learned counsel M/S Petrosin had quoted 10-15% of goods to be supplied to OGDC under tbe contraa which-wodd be Petrosin made and the Company being less then 10 years old was thus ineligible to submit bid. It. Was also submitted that M/SPetroleum and Natural Resources(Iftithar Hussain Chandhary, J)Petrosin did not fulfil sub-clause 14 of Criteria for Summary Rejection (Technical) and on that count too, was disqualified to take part in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel the awarding of contract to M/S Petrosin was violative of fundamental rights and was also against law and was unreasonable. He relied upon AIR 1979 SC 162 and 1993 SCMR 2158, another judgment from Indian jurisdiction.10. Learned Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan has submitted that OGDC was fully competent to award the contract and as a matter of fact, Under the terms of the tender documents, the award of contract had already been * notified to M/S Petrosin who have submitted Bank guarantee/performance bond and contract for all intents and purposes stands awarded. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that matter in controversy relates to awarding of contract which is not justiciable in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He submitted that writ suffers from laches inasmuch as M/S Petrosin were found technically responsive as far back as August 1993 and M/S PRESSON did not raise any objection on its eligibility. According to the learned counsel the petition suffers from laches at two stages; first when the M/S Petrosin were found technically responsive and secondly when the contract was awarded to the firm on18.7.1994. The petitioner approached the Court after about one year in the first instance and after six weeks after the contract was awarded and according to him this was fatal to its case. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that OGDC was fully competent to evaluate the bids and determine the fitness of a party for awarding the contract and the Ministry had absolutely no concern with the process and interference by the Ministry was malafide. The learned counsel also submitted that prior to submission of technical proposal M/S Petrosin informed OGDC that it was associating with itself M/S Comprimo of Holland a world renowned manufacturer of oil equipment; and prior to that on 19.4.1994 M/S Comprimo had themselves informed OGDC that they would be collaborating with M/S Petrosin in execution of this contract. According to him the Company fulfilled all the criteria commercial as well as technical prescribed by OGDC and at least two High powered committees consisting of officials of the Ministry as well as OGDC had recommended award of contract to M/S Petrosin. The learned counsel vehemently argued that it was M/S PRESSON who did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Clause 23 of ITB and as revealed by letter dated 21.2.1994 of OGDC to the Ministry, M/S PRESSON in their proposal had indicated four local fabricators as potential suppliers of the equipment all of whom were not known manufacturers of oil equipment and were only in possession of some welding/fabrication facilities. According to him the Project Coordinator had clearly stated in letter dated 21.2.1994 that "if same tender evaluation criteria was strictly followed then there was possibility that M/S PRESSON had more deviation than M/S Petrosin" and this according to him showed that M/S PRESSON itself was ineligible. Learned counsel stated that under ITB, M/S Petrosin had already been notified about award of the contractand grant of relief as prayed for in the petition would be inequitable and the Court should not interfere in the aid of injustice.11. Before analysing of the above arguments, a few words about the scope of judicial review, Judicial Review of administrative actions as principle of law is ingrained and rooted deeply in our jurisprudence, judicial system and practice. It is almost a gospel now that wherever, "there is any transgression of power, the abuse of power or colourable exercise of power, the exercise is open to correction in the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior judiciary." (Islamia University Bahawalpur vs. Dr. Muhammad Khan Malik (PLD 1993 Lahore 141). The Supreme Court in Fauji Foundation and others. v.
Shamimpur Rehman (PLD 19S3 SC 457) observed that the purpose of judicial review is corrective or directory and extends to determining legality *of administrative actions. Judicial Review now has reached a stage where dicta laid down in some cases that tribunal can decide a matter rightly or wrongly, would seem to be a far cry from hence. As an ideation judicial review has always been a dynamic concept and, to quote FW Maitland, "each generation has enormous power to shape its own' laws" its progressive growth with passage of time would bring into its fold newer subjects and enrich its armoury with bolder concepts. Lord Diplock in CCSU vs. Minister for the Civil Service (1984)3 All ER 935 at 950) says:"Judicial.Review as I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality' which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community, but to dispose of the instant case the three already well-established heads that I have mentioned will suffice.By 'illegality1 as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable.By 'irrationality11 mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see Associated Provindal Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corp (1947)2 All ER 680, (1948) I KB 233), It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be deddetl could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question thatPetroleum and Natural Resources (Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhaiy, J)judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system............................................................ I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to aict with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice."Lord Roskill in his speech (P.954) while approving the first two grounds justifying judicial review says about the third ground:"This third is where it has acted contrary to what are often called 'principles of natural justice." As to this last, the use of this phrase is no doubt hallowed by time and much judicial repetition, but it is a phrase often widely misunderstood and therefore as often misused. That phrase perhaps might now be allowed to find a permanent resting-place and be better replaced by speaking of a duty to act fairly. But that latter phrase must not in its turn be misunderstood or nnisuscd. It is not for the courts to determine whether a particular policy or particular decisions taken in fulfilment of that policy are fair. They are only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken and the extent of the duty to act fairly will vary greatly from case to case The particular manifestation of the duty to act fairly which is presently involved in that part of the recent evolution of our administrative law which may enable an aggrieved party to evoke judicial review if he can show that he had 'a reasonable expectation' of some occurrence or action preceding the decision complained of and that reasonable expectation' was not in the event fulfilled."This "duty to act fairly" is not a novel idea. The basic concept has always been fairness in action, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial yet this principle of "fairness" has matured only recently. "To act fairly" is the essential ingredient, and the basic ground rule, now in decision-making by the public functionaries, administrative organs, and Government agencies. Denial of this principle would render the decision-making subject to scrutiny by the competent Courts. Illegality, irrationality and failure to act fairly are thus legitimate grounds for exercise of this power and these would be the considerations in the present review.12.
But first, the maintainability of the petition. Both the learned counsel appearing for respondents have forcefully questioned the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the grant, or refusal to grant a contract cannot be aof activity are well-defined in this regard. Now, as noted earlier, the tender documents confer considerable discretionary powers on the OGDC to ignore certain criteria and to determine substantial responsiveness of the bidder keeping in view the best interest of OGDC, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show with reference to material on record that one set of Criteria was followed in the case of M/S PRESSON and other set was applied to M/S Petrosin. A case of discrimination is made out only where recourse is had to different standards qua equally placed persons or parties. No case of discrimination has been made out and petitioner's contentions in this regard are without any force.16. Denial of relief to petitioner has also been strenuously pleaded by respondent No. 3 on grounds of laches. Their case is that if such a ground was available to petitioner, it should have approached a judicial forum immediately after Petrosin was declared technically responsive or when OGDC indicated that job was ready to be awarded to the technically lowest bidder, or still more when OGDC notified award of contract but the petitioner filed this petition on24.8.1994, a year after the first set of events; and after about five weeks of final The answer was that Minister was approached on both the occasions and now when he could not salvage the situation, the court was approached. Law as to laches is based on the maxim. "Vigilantibus non dormientibus acquit as subvenit". The watchful and not the dormant the equity helps, and signifies laziness in pursuing a legal remedy. Any fixed period constituting laches cannot be prescribed, it will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case as to what would amount to laches. Pakistan Post Office vs. The Settlement Commissioner (1987 SCMR 1119) approvingly cited in Muhammad Ismail Oureshi vs. Gulab Din (1988 SCMR 1001). In this particular case, bids were to remain valid for 120 days only, therefore, time was an important factor. No doubt the Ministry did ask the OGDC to consider Presson for award of contract and later, in not too ungloved terms, virtually ordered OGDC to award the contract to Presson, but it must be seen that under the germane law, the Ministry could have enforced policy dictates only and a pure commercial transaction, like award of contract, deddely fell outside the pale of Ministry's jurisdiction and the pursuit of the matter by the petitioner being before an incompetent forum has to be ignored. Contentions of the respondents about indolence of the petitioner, are thus found to be not without substance.17. The OGDC established under Oil and Gas Corporation Ordinance, 1961 is an autonomous body, and is authorized under the law and the terms of tender documents to evaluate and determine the fitness, suitability and bona fides of a prospective supplier keeping commercial considerations in view, which it has done. The Corporation has selected the lowest bidder who had already supplied equipment to it and this Company's credentials were well known to the Corporation. The petitioner remained associated with the proceedings throughout and he was given enough opportunity of being heard. The decision to award contract has been made within parameters of the tender documents. There is no allegation of mala fides or kickbacks having been received as consideration foraward of contract. Now the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources has relented and assented to the award of contract to M/S Petrosin. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has also stated that M/S Petrosin would be supplying, the equipment at 1993 prices without any qualitative or quantitative deviation from the bid.18. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, already discussed above, no hesitation is felt in holding that the OGDC acted fairly in the matter. No illegality or irrationality has been found in the decision either. The petitioner has been found not entitled to any equitable relief. The petition, therefore, must fail and is accordingly dismissed.