KWSC Given Two-Month Deadline to Resolve Hydrant Operations
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has ordered the Karachi Water and Sewerage Corporation (KWSC) to decide the fate of six city hydrants within two months. The court directed the authority to either launch a fresh tender or implement a lawful interim arrangement, strictly following applicable rules and policies.
A two-judge constitutional bench emphasized that the decision must be made after hearing all stakeholders to ensure transparency and fairness. The court also noted that any continued operation beyond a contract’s expiry must be backed by legal authority and regularized through a transparent, reasoned process that protects public revenue and prevents arbitrary exclusion.
However, the bench—comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Muhammad Hasan Akber—declined to declare the current hydrant operations unlawful. It ruled that judicial intervention would be premature, as the competent authority has not yet issued a final ruling on the matter. The court also observed that the petitioner’s allegations of cartelization and collusion were general and lacked support from a competent legal forum.
The directives came in response to a petition filed in January 2026, which challenged hydrant operations in the absence of a bidding process and called for an immediate fresh auction. A private contractor argued that the last auction occurred in 2023, and the two-year contracts expired in May 2025—yet the same contractors continued operating without a lawful or competitive process.
The petitioner’s counsel alleged that the auction process has long been plagued by cartelization, with the same contractors repeatedly winning hydrant contracts over 15 years by bidding just above reserve prices, stifling competition and harming public revenue.
In response, KWSC’s counsel stated that the corporation’s board decided to further review the financial, operational, and legal aspects before reaching a final decision within a reasonable timeframe. Lawyers for two contractors objected to the petition’s maintainability, calling it based on flawed assumptions, selective facts, and unsubstantiated claims.
The court clarified that its order does not imply approval of any unlawful arrangement and stressed that public procurement must adhere to constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity under Articles 4, 18, and 25. The bench directed the competent authority to issue a speaking order—clearly outlining reasons and addressing transparency, continuation of arrangements, and future bidding—after giving the petitioner and all stakeholders a proper hearing.
Until a final decision is made, the matter remains under the authority’s jurisdiction.