IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
   (Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani 
SUO MOTU CASE NO. 5 OF 2010 
 
(Action regarding huge loss to public exchequer by ignoring lowest bid of Fauji  
Foundation and Multinational Energy from Vitol by Awarding LNG Contract) 
 
On Court notice 
 
: 
Mr. Abdul Rauf Kalasra,  
Senior Correspondent, The News.  
For Ministry of Finance  
: 
Mr.M. Iqbal Awan, Addl. Secy Finance.  
For Cabinet Division  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal, JS.  
For Fauji Foundation  
: 
Barrister Sajid Zahid, ASC.  
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Gen. (R) Hamid Rab Nawaz, MD.  
For Ministry of Petroleum  : 
Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Kamran Lashari, Secy Petroleum. 
For GDF Suez 
 
: 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Momand, ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
For SSGCL  
 
: 
Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Safdar Hussain, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr.M.Naim Sharafat, Sr. Project Manager.   
For Mr. G.A. Sabri,  
: 
Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr. ASC.  
Special Secretary Petroleum 
Mr. Umar Mehmood Qasuri, ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad Akram, AOR a/w  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. G.A. Sabri, Special Secy. 
 
Dates of hearing  
 
: 
14th, 21st to 23rd and 26th to 28th April, 2010. 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT. 
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. – This Human 
Right case was initiated on news item appearing in daily newspaper ‘the 
News’ dated 28th March, 2010, of which note was put up by the Registrar of 
this Court and the same was treated as petition under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution for the facts disclosed therein in respect of alleged massive 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
2 
corruption in awarding contract of supply of LNG. Upon the office note, 
following order was passed:- 
“A perusal of the above note indicates that a huge loss has 
been caused to the public exchequer as a result whereof 
public at large has been deprived from this amount, which 
could be utilized for their welfare and, prima facie, such 
actions seem to be violation of fundamental rights, principle 
of transparency and equal opportunity. Therefore, this office 
note be treated as petition under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution and be fixed before the Court tomorrow i.e.  
2nd April, 2010. Notice be also issued to Mr. Rauf Klasra, 
reporter of ‘the News’ to appear and place on record the 
documents on the basis of which he has flashed this news 
item.”   
2. 
 
In pursuance of above order Mr. Rauf Kalasra appeared and 
placed on record a copy of letter dated 10th February, 2010, issued by Mr. 
Shaukat Tarin, former Finance Minister to Mr. G.A. Sabri, Special 
Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources; contents whereof 
read as under:- 
“Please refer to the captioned agenda item discussed at the 
ECC meeting of February 09, 2010. Today, I was contacted 
by the Managing Director of Fauji Foundation who enquired 
from me as to why their joint bid with VITOL was not 
entertained despite being the lowest. Given, that the 
VITOL/FAUJI proposal was not even presented, I could not 
give him a satisfactory answer.  
2. 
Therefore, I would like you to advise me urgently as to 
why their offer was not considered by your Ministry and the 
evaluation committee. 
Thanks and regards.  
    Sd/- 
(SHAUKAT TARIN)” 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
3 
Mr. Rauf Kalasra stated that when he learnt about awarding of contract for 
supply of LNG, he probed into the matter and discovered that before 
awarding the contract to one of the foreign firm, the Ministry of Petroleum 
had, in principle, decided to give contract to Shell Gas & Power Co. and 
towards that end, the Minister for Petroleum was invited to Doha to witness 
signing of relevant documents in due course. He referred to a letter 
addressed to Mr. Naveed Qamar, Minister for Petroleum and Natural 
Resources, dated 4th February, 2010 by H.E. Abdulla Bin Hamad Al-
Attiyah, Deputy Premier, Minister of Energy & Industry, State of Qatar. He 
explained that the Ministry of Petroleum, in order to provide the contract 
for supply of LNG to Shell Gas & Power, prepared a summary dated 8th 
February, 2010 and referred the matter to ECC, recommending the name of 
Shell Gas & Power and GDF Suez, leaving behind the FAUJI/VITOL, a 
Pakistan-based company, which was interested in Short Term LNG Supply 
project. The ECC, due to intervention of the Ministry of Petroleum, 
declined to approve the name of Shell Gas & Power for supply of LNG and 
recommended the name of GDF Suez. Mr. Kalasra stated that the 
proceedings for completion of the contract were not carried on in a 
transparent manner. 
4. 
 
Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. ASC appeared on behalf of Federation of 
Pakistan, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC for GDF Suez, Mr. Ali Zafar, 
ASC for Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. (SSGCL), Barrister Sajid Zahid, ASC 
for Fauji Foundation and Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr. ASC appeared on 
behalf of Mr. G.A. Sabri, Special Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum. 
5.  
 
Initially, in order to comprehend the nature of this complex 
issue Mr. Naim Sharafat, Senior Project Director, SSGCL was heard in 
 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
4 
detail, who explained his view point as follows:- 
“In February, 2005 Planning Commission presented an Energy 
Security Plan to the then President and the Prime Minister, wherein 
the gap between demand and supply of gas in the long term was 
projected containing gap coverage strategy. It was mentioned in 
the plan that there should be LNG Projects and pipelines for supply 
of gas from outside the country. It was proposed that Sui Southern 
Gas Co. Ltd. (SSGCL) should be made facilitator as the LNG was 
to reach at Karachi and the terminal was to be built there and then 
it will be the responsibility of the SSGCL to supply. The role of 
facilitator, as per LNG policy, was to move with the project and 
obtain the approval of Government of Pakistan, wherever it is 
identified and required. First of all, when the SSGCL was 
appointed as facilitator, it appointed a consultant on the project 
after due process; seven international and local consortiums 
applied for the same; one of them namely consortium of ABN 
Amro (local company) and Poten and Partner (from Australia) 
were selected; this consortium was of international repute. Board 
of Directors of SSGCL approved the process and granted 
permission for award of contract to them. The contract was 
awarded in October, 2005. After their appointment, they prepared a 
concept report in order to determine as to in what form this project 
would be suitable for Pakistan. (copy of the same shall be 
submitted). Since the international market demands the policy of 
the Government of Pakistan, therefore, Pakistan’s first LNG Policy 
was formulated which was approved by the Economic 
Coordination Committee (ECC) in April, 2006; thereafter, SSGCL 
initiated the Expression of Interest (EoI) process in terms of LNG 
Policy and an advertisement in this behalf, which was as per the 
LNG Policy, was made in International Dailies i.e. Khaleej Times 
and Financial Times London as well as in national dailies. In 
response to that advertisement, 53 companies applied for 
registration out of which after evaluation, 36 companies were 
supplied with a document called Expression of Interest, prepared 
by the consultant. Out of those 36 companies, only 14 companies 
provided their statement of qualification document /Pre-
qualification, as per the EoI document. Out of these 14 companies, 
six companies applied for integrated projects (including 
construction and operation of the terminal as well as supply of 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
5 
LNG and we will only purchase gas from them); second process 
was that one company will construct the terminal and the other will 
supply/bring the LNG); third process was only for supply; so the 
six companies were for integrated project, six for construction of 
terminal and two for only supply. Since the integrated projects 
suits us because we had no experience in LNG process being a 
different market world, therefore, we opted for integrated project 
and we placed the same before ECC, who approved the same in 
February, 2007. After that approval, we floated the tendered 
document i.e. Request for Proposal document to five companies as 
the sixth one (i.e. Fauji Foundation) who had applied for both the 
projects merged into one. Out of those five companies, three 
withdrew their proposal as at that time internationally the LNG 
market was very tight and supply was not available. So only two 
companies namely Shell Gas & Power and Consortium of Fore 
Gas, Fauji Foundation, Fotco and Soges submitted their bids. This 
bid was subject to two bid package system i.e. Technical and 
Commercial (after evaluation the price was to be considered). On 
receipt of bid, the Consortium reduced to three companies as the 
fourth one Soges withdrew from the same. Our consultant 
evaluated them and we made a presentation before the Ministry of 
Petroleum. Upon clearance from the Ministry of Petroleum, the 
proposal call was made to both the companies i.e. Shell and the 
Consortium of Foregas, Fauji and Fotco. In September, 2007, both 
of them submitted their price proposals, containing both the 
proposals i.e. land based terminals and floating terminals. Since the 
land based terminals require long time of about 5/6 years for 
construction and we had specifically mentioned in the tender that 
we need early supply possibility, as energy supply gap was being 
faced since 2005, therefore, the floating terminal option, offered by 
the Consortium of 4-Gas, Fauji Foundation and Fotco was 
accepted. However, in April, 2008 the Fauji Foundation and Fotco 
withdrew from the Consortium. So far, award is under process. We 
asked the 4-Gas whether it will continue on the project as on stand 
on basis, to which they replied that they take the responsibility and 
will continue on the project. After the price proposal, etc. as the 
market was very tight and no supply was available, some LNG 
projects also started in the private sector. For this reason, it was 
said by the LNG supplier (i.e. Qatar Petroleum, the largest supplier 
of LNG in the international market and the Foregas has to take 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
6 
supply from it) that it will only deal with the Company having 
Letter of Exclusivity. Since there was no provision in the tender 
document for issuance of Letter of Exclusivity, therefore, Ministry 
of Petroleum after approval of ECC, issued Letter of Support not 
Letter of Exclusivity on 17th December, 2008, which was valid 
only for nine months, during which the Foregas had to identify the 
suppliers and those suppliers had to submit original documents 
showing their capacity to supply and the period of supply. On 26th 
August, 2009 these documents were supplied to us. After that Price 
Negotiation Committee (PNC) was constituted, who also 
negotiated the matter with Shell, GDF Suez, BP, Total, Woodside 
and Mitsubishi for supply. Ultimately, best offer was made by 
GDF Suez for the first six years. In July, 2009 fresh Expression of 
Interest was invited for short term supply of LNG on the direction 
of Minister for Petroleum. At that time Dr. Aasim was Incharge of 
the Ministry. Letter in this behalf was issued by the Director 
General Gas to issue Expression of Interest ad for supply of gas for 
short term i.e. five years. Upon receipt of bids, the same were sent 
to the Ministry of Petroleum with our reservations over it that it 
will complicate the situation and both the processes are to be dealt 
with separately and a clear line is to be drawn between both the 
processes. However, we received instructions to proceed as such 
we continued the process. In end of July, 2009, we received ten 
bids from different companies/consortium including Shell, Fauji 
Foundation/Vitol, Engro Exel, etc. in response to advertisement 
made in all local leading newspapers including Dawn, News, Jang, 
etc. Since it was not the Mashal Project and was short term LNG 
Project, therefore, we did not involve our Consultant. After general 
evaluation of these ten bids, we proposed to the Ministry of 
Petroleum that Shell Gas & Power is a company, which can supply 
LNG; secondly we proposed though Fauji/Vitol has offered the 
package for supply along with terminal, having capacity of 1 
million ton of LNG but it is not involved in the LNG business, as 
evident from their web-site. Since Price Evaluation Committee was 
constituted in the meantime and it also considered Shell as it was 
included in the suppliers of Mashal project as well as in short term 
LNG project and Fauji/Vitol. These negotiations were only for 
supplies as it had already been decided that terminal would be of 
Foregas because it was installing both land based as well as 
floating terminals; although our main concern was land based 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
7 
terminal but its cost was too high, which would result in high tariff 
of the gas so we preferred the floating terminal option; we asked to 
establish floating terminal for 5/6 years and then to convert it into 
land based terminal. Negotiations were made on price formula and 
volume of supply; the final result of the negotiations was sent to 
the Consultants for their opinion; on 22nd January, 2010 they 
opined that the offer of GDF Suez with regard to medium term 
supply is very attractive and if there is no other proposal like it, we 
should go by it (copy of that opinion shall be supplied). They also 
opined that in case of supply for 20 years, there will be greater 
risk; the supplier will not take such risk and put it in the price 
formula as well as we also cannot take risk, but for the supply of 
5/6 years there is calculated risk therefore, the cost will be less. 
The final summary is made by the Ministry of Petroleum, however, 
we just submit the evaluation report as well as other documents 
along with our recommendations made in line with the 
recommendations of the Consultant. We are not involved in the 
preparation of summary. Since, in the instant case the summary 
was prepared on the basis of price negotiation and the Price 
Negotiation Committee, Chaired by Special Secretary, who had all 
the necessary documents with him, was involved in it and we just 
forwarded the opinion of our Consultant. So further process was 
completed by them without our involvement except the fact that I 
also remained as member of the Price Negotiation Committee after 
October, 2009. The main recommendation was of GDF Suez for 
six years as per the quoted price rate, whereafter GDF Suez was 
offering 1 million ton which could go up to 1.5 million ton per 
year. Fauji/Vitol had not made any separate offer for supply of 
LNG alone as their offer made in July, 2009 was for supply with 
terminal. The advertisement made in July, 2009 was for supply 
only whereas the Fauji/Vitol made offer for supply with terminal. 
It was not recommended as it was not in Mashal Project whereas 
this summary was for Mashal Project. Though they had made new 
offer for short term project but they had withdrawn from Mashal 
Project. Mashal Project is separate and short term LNG Project is 
separate. We have not considered the Fauji/Vitol in Mashal 
Project.”   
6. 
 
Likewise, Mr. G.A. Sabri, Special Secretary Petroleum 
appeared with the permission of the Court and narrated the steps taken so 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
8 
far in the LNG supply project. He also submitted his written reply along 
with all supportive documents, which are made part of the record of the 
case.  
7. 
 
Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the 
Federation of Pakistan disowned the stand taken by the above two officers 
and argued the case on behalf of the Federation on its independent footing. 
Similarly Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC made his submissions on behalf of SSGCL. 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC stated that the company being 
represented by him enjoys international recognition in the business of LNG 
and it could not involve itself in any sham-deal, if at all it had taken place, 
because being one of the interested companies to supply LNG in Pakistan it 
came forward and quoted its rates. As far as the procedure of finalizing the 
same is concerned, it has nothing to do with the same and it was for the 
Government of Pakistan to decide it.   
8. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the Federation of 
Pakistan, SSGCL and for FAUJI/VITOL as well as Special Secretary, 
Ministry of Petroleum. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is to be 
observed that as:-- 
a) 
In 2006 the LNG Policy was approved for the sustainable 
development of the energy sector including the provision of 
reliable and competitively-priced energy. 
b) 
In pursuance of above policy SSGCL was appointed as 
facilitator whereas RBS and Poten & Partners were appointed 
as consultant by the SSGCL to take forward the project.  
c) 
On 10th May, 2006, by making publications, applications 
were invited for Registration for Expression of Interest 
Process from the companies interested, for the purpose of 
following integrated project:- 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
9 
a) 
Supply of regasified LNG to SSGCL, including 
LNG procurement, transportation, setting up 
LNG terminal and operating the same; 
b) 
LNG tolling terminal by construction, owning, 
operating and maintaining an LNG import 
terminal;  
c) 
Supply of LNG to SSGCL on a long-term, take-
or-pay basis using customary international terms 
and conditions.  
d)  
In response to above, initially 53 companies got themselves 
registered and after short listing 14 companies were approved 
for issuance of Letter of Expression of Interest; out of them 
six got the said letter including the 4-Gas.  
e) 
4-Gas was a consortium comprising of 4-Gas, FAUJI 
FOUNDATION, FOTCO, VITOL. 
f) 
It appears that except the Consortium of 4-Gas, no other 
company was declared qualified by the Consultant, 
ultimately.  
g) 
4-Gas Consortium applied for Letter of Exclusivity in 
December, 2008 and the matter was placed before the ECC, 
who agreed upon issuance of such letter but Ministry of 
Petroleum issued Letter of Support to 4-Gas in December, 
2008, contents whereof read as under:- 
 
“Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd (“SSGCL”) with the consent of 
the Ministry of Petroleum of the Government of Pakistan 
(“GOP”), is pleased to issue this Pre-Award letter to the 4-Gas 
consortium (the “Consortium) for the Pakistan Mashal LNG 
Project (“PMLP”) a project with a base load capacity of 3.5 mtpa 
to be located at the proposed Consortium site (“Site”) at Port 
Qasim near Karachi, Pakistan. The PMLP will supply, on a long-
term (20-25 year) basis, approximately 500 MMSCFD of 
Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas (“RLNG”) to SSGCL at the 
agreed quality which is almost 50% of the country’s gas shortfall 
in 2010/11. The PMLP is to be developed on an integrated basis 
and as such the Consortium shall be responsible for LNG supply, 
marine transportation, unloading, storage and regasification at 
the terminal to be built and operated by the Consortium in 
Pakistan.  
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
10 
 
 
SSGCL, with the approval of GOP initiated a Request 
for Proposal (“RFP”) process in February 2007 and has no 
wreached a stage where project award decision can be made in 
favour of bidder meeting all or most of the RFP requirements 
and submitting suppliers documentation as confirmation of LNG 
volumes for PMLP.  
 
 
The Consortium has emerged from the PMLP RFP 
process, facilitated by SSGCL, as the bidder meeting most of the 
RFP requirements and is given exclusivity in progressing the 
Project further to a stage where project can be awarded and 
executed in accordance with the agreed contract structure, 
subject to providing evidence of LNG supply of PMLP.  
 
 
The PMLP is of national importance and the completion 
of this strategic infrastructure for Pakistan is considered by GOP 
to be of the top most priority. The LNG supply for Pakistan to be 
secured at international competitive LNG price.  
 
 
SSGCL further confirms that GOP will enter into an 
Implementation Agreement with the Consortium after project 
award. The Implementation Agreement will contain standard 
concessions and permissions and provide protection against 
political risks, as per GOP Policies and other Pakistan 
infrastructure projects. The Implementation Agreement will also 
provide guarantees for SSGCL’s RLNG cost (including LNG, 
freight, terminal and regasification charges) payment obligations 
under the proposed Gas (RLNG) Sale and Purchase Agreement.  
 
 
This letter is issued to confirm our intentions and to 
assist the Consortium to progress discussions with LNG 
suppliers and contractors for all aspects of the PMLP. The 
Consortium has permission to communicate the contents of this 
letter to LNG suppliers and EPC contractors.  
 
 
As a fundamental requirement, the PMLP will be 
developed to satisfy both Pakistan and international standards 
and codes of practice. On the basis this requirement is met, GOP 
will facilitate in obtaining approvals sought by the Consortium 
for the Site on a timely basis.  
 
 
On receipt of this letter, 4-Gas Consortium is required to 
coordinate with Port Authorities and finalize a date for 
presenting the site specific Qualitative Risk Assessment Study 
(QRA), Preliminary Risk Analysis (PRA) and results of 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
11 
Navigational Simulation Study in order to start the PQA NOC 
process.  
 
 
Upon submission by the Consortium of satisfactory 
documentary evidence that a minimum LNG volume for PMLP 
has been secured and a NOC from the PQA for the terminal has 
been obtained, a formal and final PMLP award decision will be 
made after GOP approval.  
 
 
Upon issue of this letter, the Consortium, at its own cost 
and risk, will promptly demonstrate commitment to a FEED 
study and continue to submit available documentation to 
SSGCL/GOP as confirmation of progress towards securing LNG 
volumes for PMLP. The Consortium will be ready to award an 
EPC contract for the project within the validity of this letter and 
financial close as expediently as possible thereafter. It is 
expected that a Heads of Agreement for the minimum LNG 
supply will also be ready to be signed within the validity of this 
letter.  
 
 
The Consortium shall provide SSGCL/GOP with regular 
(fortnightly) progress reviews on all aspects of the PMLP.  
 
 
This letter is valid for 9 months from the date of issue, 
however, lack of progress on the Project may result in 
withdrawal of this letter at SSGCL’s sole discretion.  
 
 
Keeping in view the LNG supply and demand situation, 
this letter is seen as a critical step in proceeding further with the 
PMLP and towards securing long-term LNG volumes for 
Pakistan, being a new entrant in the LNG world.”   
 
h) 
In the meantime, vide another advertisement dated 18th July, 
2009, SSGCL invited Expression of Interest for Short Term 
LNG Supply, contents whereof read as under:- 
 
 
“The Government of Pakistan (GOP) through the 
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources, has been 
progressing the long term, base load, integrated “Pakistan 
Mashal LNG Project” with facilitation by Sui Southern Gas 
Company Ltd.  
 
In view of the acute shortage of natural gas in the country and 
consequent shortfall in electricity generation, GOP now wishes 
to separately secure readily available Liquefied Natural Gas 
(LNG) on short term basis (up to 5 years). Parties having access 
to LNG volumes for immediate delivery are requested to provide 
an either FOB or CIF basis, an “Expression of Interest” to the 
General Manager (Materials Management) on the address given 
below by 31 July, 2009.”   
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
12 
j) 
It seems that in response to above advertisement, 10 
companies got registration including FAUJI/VITOL in this 
project and ultimately except FAUJI/VITOL, remaining 
companies were short listed. 
9. 
 
It is alleged on behalf of the FAUJI/VITOL that they 
submitted their conditions of Short Term LNG Supply and Price 
Negotiating Committee (PNC) had been negotiating with them by 
convening number of meetings but surprisingly instead of recommending 
their name, the Ministry of Petroleum put up a summary on 9th February, 
2010 to ECC for approving the Shell Gas & Power or GDF Suez to award 
contract of Mashal Project, therefore, on acquiring knowledge of this fact, 
they agitated the matter before the Minister for Petroleum.  
10. 
 
A careful perusal of the above facts reveals that the Ministry 
of Petroleum and SSGCL had not followed the process for awarding 
contract for LNG Supply for Mashal or Short Term Project seriously and 
with high order of transparency as it is evident from the facts and 
circumstances narrated above. We also find from the documents made 
available that there is price slope averaging from 0.145 to 0.155, which 
need to be kept in view.  Here we may observe that it is duty of the Court to 
ensure that the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 
read with the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 are adhered to strictly to 
exhibit transparency. It is universally recognized principle that such type of 
transactions must be made in transparent manner for the satisfaction of the 
people, who are the virtual owners of the national exchequer, which is 
being invested in these projects. [Messrs Airport Support Services v. The 
Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi (1998 SCMR 
2268) and M/s Ramna Pipe and General Mills (Pvt) Ltd.   v.  M/s Sui Northern 
Gas Pipe Lines (Pvt) Ltd.  (2004 SCMR 1274)].   
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
13 
11. 
 
During the course of hearing, it was observed by the Court 
that since Letter of Support (LOS) dated 17th December, 2008 was issued 
by the SSGCL in favour of 4-Gas on the recommendations of ECC as no 
other developer was declared to be qualified by the Consultants of SSGCL, 
introducing Shell Gas & Power and GDF Suez at this stage seems to be not 
covered by the documents in pursuance whereof 4-Gas was declared 
qualified for Integrated Project; therefore, to achieve the transparency, 
openness, fairness and justness in awarding contract, the Ministry of 
Petroleum ultimately has to commence the proceedings of awarding of the 
contract from the stage where it was left, when instead of approving the 
name of 4-Gas for Mashal Project and the name of FAUJI/VITOL for short 
term LNG supply were not mentioned in the summary submitted to ECC 
and the names of Shell Gas & Power  and GDF Suez  were recommended. 
Upon this, the learned counsel requested for time to seek instructions from 
the concerned authority. As such on 27th April, 2010, following order was 
passed:- 
“Learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated that this 
case may be adjourned enabling the learned counsel appearing for 
the Federation of Pakistan to seek instructions from the Prime 
Minister of Pakistan on the following lines:- 
a) 
In view of the importance of the matter, put up before the 
Court in pursuance of news clipping dated 29th March, 
2010, appearing in “the News” and on hearing the 
observations of the Court during the course of hearing, 
would it be possible to direct the Ministry of Petroleum to 
put up a fresh summary through a responsible officer 
before Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) for 
considering the case of 4-Gas for Mashal Pakistan Project 
and on the basis of the same, fresh decision shall be taken 
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
14 
for awarding the contract for supply of LNG to 4-Gas, 
declared qualified by the Consultant of SSGCL.  
b) 
As simultaneously Short Term LNG Supply Project is also 
under consideration in which Fauji/Vitol are the lowest 
bidders; their cases shall also be considered by the ECC, 
beside the case of Mashal to take decision thereon 
independently.  
c) 
Earlier decision of the ECC, agreeing to award the contract 
of LNG supply to any firm/company/party would not give 
right to any of such firm/company/party to make claim in 
this behalf and the same shall be of no consequence.  
 
 
Request is allowed. Adjourned for tomorrow i.e. 28th April, 2010.”     
12. 
 
It is to be noted that on the even date Mr. Kamran Lashari, 
incumbent  Secretary Petroleum contended that in view of the observations 
of the Court, made during the course of hearing, Government was ready to 
place fresh summary to the ECC by commencing the proceedings, 
wherefrom the same were left. 
13. 
 
Today, the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of Pakistan, 
through Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. ASC has come forward with the following 
statement and has requested to dispose of the matter in terms thereof:- 
“STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT OF PAKSITAN,  
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, ISLAMABAD.  
 
That without prejudice to its stand taken in Court the Government 
confirms that it shall  
 
1. Put up a summary relating to the Mashal Pakistan Project before the 
Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) for a fresh decision for 
awarding the contract for supply of LNG to 4-Gas, the Developer 
declared qualified by the Consultant SSGCL.  
 
2. Simultaneously put up a summary relating to the Fauji/Vitol proposal 
against advertisement for Expression of Interest dated 18 July 2009 for 
consideration and decision independently and separately from the case of 
Mashal.  
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
15 
 
3. As a consequence of 1 above, the ECC decision dated 9th February 
2010 to award the contract of supply to any person would not give any 
right to such person to make any claim in this behalf and shall be of no 
consequence.   
Sd/- 
Kamran Lashari 
Secretary Petroleum.  
Dated 28.04.2010.” 
 
Learned counsel also stated that the above stand of the Federation is with 
the concurrence of Worthy Prime Minister of Pakistan. Copy of the above 
statement was handed over to Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC,  
Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr. ASC, Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC Barrister Sajid 
Zahid, ASC and Mr. Rauf Kalasara on which they have expressed their 
satisfaction on the above statement and desired for decision of the petition 
in terms thereof.   
14. 
 
Thus in view of statement made by the Federal Government, 
reproduced above, this petition is disposed of accordingly, with the hope 
that now the matter shall be considered in a highly transparent manner, both 
for Mashal Pakistan and Short Term LNG Supply Projects. No order as to 
costs.   
15. 
 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC states that GDF Suez is 
not involved in any manner in deal causing loss to the nation of Pakistan 
yet on appearing of the news item and initiation of instant proceedings 
thereon, has caused damage to its goodwill, therefore, appropriate order 
protecting its position be passed in this behalf. Mr. Rauf Kalasra, Senior 
Correspondent, daily newspaper ‘The News ’, however, reaffirms the stand 
taken by him in the news item. Be that as it may, as determination on merits 
has not been made by this Court to declare the involvement of GDF Suez, 
no order/observation is required to be passed in this behalf.  
Suo Moto Case No.5 of 2010 
16 
16. 
 
In 
view 
of 
illegalities, 
irregularities, 
omissions 
and 
commissions, noted in instant case, we are constrained to make observation 
that the officers/functionaries responsible for the same are required to be 
dealt with in accordance with law and we hope that Chief Executive/Prime 
Minister of Pakistan shall probe into the matter accordingly. Mr. Kamran 
Lashari, Secretary Petroleum has stated that as now he is Secretary, he 
would deal with the matter himself and Mr. G.A. Sabri, Special Secretary 
Petroleum shall not be associated with it.    
 
 
Before parting with the judgment, we would like to place on 
record our thanks to Mr. Rauf Kalasra, Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr. ASC, Mr. Abdul 
Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC, Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr. ASC, Mr. Ali 
Zafar, ASC and Barrister Sajid Zahid, ASC for providing valuable 
assistance in disposal of this matter.         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CJ.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  J.  
Islamabad, 
28.04.2010. 
 Irshad /*         
 
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
