ISLAMABAD, 28 April — The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has asked the government not to destroy its credibility for some amount of money, and cautioned it that, while privatizing its units, rules of propriety and fairness must be kept supreme. “ A civilized society does not sacrifice propriety, the rule of law and of natural justice and norms of business for just some amount of money.”

In its judgment on Thursday on a petition filed by the Petrosin Group, the LHC directed the Privatization Commission not to hand over the LPG assets of SNGPL to the Shell, the highest bidder at the second auction, before the Petrosin group, the highest bidder at the first auction, was given hearing by the Cabinet Committee on Privatization (CCOP).

“ We, therefore, direct the CCOP for the needful and ask the Privatization Commission (PC) to arrange for this opportunity with convenient dispatch”.

The Petrosin Group was the highest bidder for LPG assets, with a bid of 121 million rupees. When the matter was placed before the CCOP, it did not approve. At the second auction, the bid by Shell Gas (Pakistan) Ltd. was of 142 million rupees.

The Petrosin Group had offered matching its bid with the latest highest bid. It was argued before the court that matching the highest bid was not something new and that in India, this was something usual.

Justice Ali Nawaz Chowhan, who authored the judgment, quoted a saying that “where law ends tyranny begins”. Every citizen supported the government’s efforts for getting the maximum profit against the sale of its largesse, but the citizens would equally require observance of propriety and norms known to society, it was observed. The government, after adopting the policy of privatization, the court further observed in the judgment, was bound by norms of marketing and commercial activity. “When it enjoins sale through bidding of its largesse, it has to follow all what market believes in and what public expects.” The court held that, “ if the results achieved at the time of bidding were not to be approved, there was demand for propriety and also for reasonableness that the successful bidder was informed of the reasons for the non-acceptance of his bid.”