The petitioner is a company, which manufactures steel pipes. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited respondent No.1 had invited tenders on 4-5-2002 for supply to it of 75000 tons of steel pipe of 8" diameter. Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Respondent No.2 participated in the tender and has been awarded a contract for the aforesaid supply. A purchase order is due to be issued to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. By respondent No. 1.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also capable of manufacturing the requisite pipe and has applied for pre-qualification with respondent No. 1. This may be so. However, the admitted position is that the petitioner has not as yet been pre-qualified by respondent No. 1.
3. This petition, inter alia, seeks a declaration to the effect that the award of the above-referred tender by respondent No. 1 to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Is illegal with the further prayer that the award of contract to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. Be set aside.
4. It is important to note that the tender was floated as far back as 4-5-2002. The last date for submitting bids was 30-6-2002. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved of any delay by respondent No.1 in processing its application for pre-qualification, it ought to have approached the Court in May-June this year, before the opening of bids.
5. Upon a question as to why the petitioner did not do so, learned counsel was not able to offer any satisfactory explanation. He only stated that the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 and entered into correspondence with it. Learned counsel also stated that in meetings with respondent No. 1, the petitioner was given some indication that it would be considered for future contracts.
6. Now that the respondent No. 1 has completed the entire process for procurement of the requisite supply and as about to issue a purchase order, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to seek cancellation of the award of contract and to restrain issuance of a purchaser order to Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.
7. The commercial operations and business affairs of the -respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to be stymied by this belated petition. I find .No equities in favour of the petitioner and also hold that in view of the circumstances narrated above, this petition is hit by laches. As a consequence, it is dismissed in limine.