Matter Regarding Construction of Nai Guj Dam; WAPDA v. NEIE SMADB-LILLEY-RMS and others

Case summary

The judgment in brief

Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court set aside Sindh High Court orders altering the Nai Gaj Dam contract and preserved arbitral finality under Article 199.

Question of law

The legal question

Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 to vary contractual and financial rights crystallized in an arbitral award made rule of the court, the resulting decree, and an implementing memorandum; whether later PEC guidelines could retrospectively override that framework; and whether the High Court could interfere with a separate NAB inquiry concerning an allegedly forged performance guarantee.

Holding

What the Court decided

Once the arbitral award was made rule of the court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, a decree followed, and the parties acted upon the implementing memorandum, their rights and liabilities stood crystallized. Article 199 could not be used as appellate or review jurisdiction to rewrite those substantive rights. Later non-statutory PEC guidelines could not retrospectively displace the 2011 contract and final settlement. The NAB inquiry was an independent cause requiring necessary parties and reasoned adjudication.

Result

Outcome and directions

The connected civil petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The Sindh High Court judgments and orders dated 6 October 2023, 27 May 2025, and 13 June 2025 were set aside; Constitution Petition No. 64 of 2018 and pending applications were disposed of. The contractor was given one week to request resumption on the settled terms, WAPDA was directed to decide within fifteen days, no further escalation was permitted, and WAPDA could re-tender the remaining works at risk and cost if the contractor declined.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

The connected civil petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The Sindh High Court judgments and orders dated 6 October 2023, 27 May 2025, and 13 June 2025 were set aside; Constitution Petition No. 64 of 2018 and pending applications were disposed of. The contractor was given one week to request resumption on the settled terms, WAPDA was directed to decide within fifteen days, no further escalation was permitted, and WAPDA could re-tender the remaining works at risk and cost if the contractor declined.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.