The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a joint venture agreement of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) with Multi-Professional Co-operative Housing Society (MPCHS), for developing 54 acres land in northern strip of sector E-11 of capital.
The Supreme Court on March 14 had reserved its verdict on controversial award of contract by CDA to MPCH for developing the Northern Strip Project - a new commercial area in sector E-11, developed under the first public-private partnership involving the civic body and the co-operative housing society.
The 39-page judgement authored by the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on a suo motu case of July 2009, said that under clause (iv) of regulation 4(1)A of the regulation 1992, the agreement is declared to be inconsistent with sections 12 and 13 read with section 2(a) & (j) and consequently the JVA entered with MPCHS is rendered 'inoperative and ineffective' qua CDA. Sector E-11, where the Northern Strip Project is located, was privatised by the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under 1992 Islamabad Zoning Regulations.
The apex court directed the chairman CDA to take over the project and complete the same in accordance with the provisions of CDA Ordinance, 1960, besides ensuring implementation of the judgement and submit compliance report within one month. However, the court gave MPCHS right to pursue the remedy for recovery of any amount spent on the project in accordance with law. "MPCHS will be at liberty to pursue the remedy for recovery of any amount spent on the project in accordance with law", the verdict said.
The Chief Justice in his judgement observed that it was important to note that Islamabad being the Capital of the country, each inch of its land belonged to the people of Pakistan.
The verdict said that it was a prime land, situated in one of the most expensive sectors of the capital and the civic body (CDA) was mandated not only to make arrangements for planning and development of capital, but was authorised/compelled to perform functions of a Municipal Committee to promote interests of different sections of the society including taxpayers.
Any transaction, the verdict said which was not transparent and went against people interest was in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, which guaranteed right to life to all persons. "A fundamental right cannot be snatched away or waived off pursuant to any agreement," it added.
Commenting on JVA between CDA and MPCHS, the verdict noted: "We looked at (it) from every angle but the transaction appears to be a sham deal and the whole exercise appears to be an eyewash and it also negates the claim of huge investment made by MPCHS in the project".
The verdict said that though it was an open bid invited through advertisement in the press, only three parties came forward, of which two did not submit financial and technical proposals along with their applications, which depicted their non-seriousness in the matter. "Only one firm - MPCHS submitted application accompanied by financial and technical proposals, which was accepted by CDA. Thus, with only one party left in the field, practically there was no competition. The non-submission of financial and technical proposals, in the circumstances, appeared to be collusive and mala fide", it noted.
"In such a situation, the CDA, instead of going for further advertisement of the tender, chose to be content with the one and the only party in the field and thus deprived of the advantage of competitive bidding. "According to aforesaid agreements, huge sum of money running into millions of rupees were allegedly paid but, surprisingly, no details of payment, such as bank drafts, pay orders, cheques etc were given in the said agreements. It is unbelievable that such large sum of money was paid in cash", said the verdict.
It further said that the agreements in question were not registered legally. "There was, so to say, no valid proof of payment furnished to our satisfaction. Further, no details of the land allegedly in the illegal possession of the land grabbers along with the names/number of encroachers were provided," it added.
The verdict said that CDA was not competent to allow private societies to operate in Zone-1, even otherwise the transaction could, in no manner, be termed as transparent. The decision also raises objection, the verdict added, to bidding process by saying that there was complete absence of fair and open competition in the bidding process. Such a situation did call for making a fresh advertisement, which was not done. "Terms and conditions like ratio of plots to be offered to intending bidders etc were not published in advertisement and a full picture was not given to them", it added.