| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4335 2025 SLD 4335 = 2025 CLC 1281 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 3578 of 2024, decided on 9th April, 2025.
Before Inaam Ameen Minhas, J
Raja Muhammad Ali for Petitioner. Faisal Irfan, Deputy Attorney General along with Abdul Nabi, Director Legal and Aitezaz Rashid, Assistant Legal PPRA for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Muhammad Waqar Rana and Khalil Khan Sahibzada for
Respondent No. 4. Ali Raza, Hamza Siddiqui and Sidharth Rashid Raza for
Respondent No. 5.
Writ Petition No. 3578 of 2024, decided on 9th April, 2025.
Before Inaam Ameen Minhas, J
Raja Muhammad Ali for Petitioner. Faisal Irfan, Deputy Attorney General along with Abdul Nabi, Director Legal and Aitezaz Rashid, Assistant Legal PPRA for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Muhammad Waqar Rana and Khalil Khan Sahibzada for
Respondent No. 4. Ali Raza, Hamza Siddiqui and Sidharth Rashid Raza for
Respondent No. 5.
Messrs KARSAZ (PVT.) LIMITED through Duly Authorized representative --Petitioner
VERSUS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and 4 others ---Respondents
Law: Public Procurement Rules, 2004
Section: 34,48(7)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004-------Rr. 34 & 48(7)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Procurement process, challenging of---Tender for procurement of explosive detection system at an international airport---Technical evaluation of bids, grievance against---Petitioner challenged the dismissal of its appeal by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) against the rejection of its grievance over a tender for the procurement of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) floated by respondent No. 4--Although petitioner and another bidder were both technically qualified, petitioner objected to the technical evaluation, claiming irregularities, lowered specifications, and favoritism towards the other bidder---The grievance was rejected by the GRC and appeal against it was dismissed by PPRA which was challenged through the present Constitutional petition---Held: The entire evaluation process was carried out transparently, ensuring the petitioner had full and fair opportunity to participate and raise objection if any---The petitioner submitted all required documents and was given an adequate opportunity to demonstrate its technical qualifications per the prescribed parameters---Upon thorough scrutiny, both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 (the competitive bidder) were found technically compliant and qualified---Although the petitioner raised objection to the technical evaluation report, a detailed examination of the record revealed that the petitioner failed to produce any convincing or credible evidence to establish that the procurement process was tainted with bias, arbitrariness, or discrimination---Therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the technical evaluation report was devoid of merit and unsustainable in law---Petitioner could not take any further new grounds through present Constitutional petition which were not taken in the proceedings before the forums below as such practice was not allowed in the Constitutional jurisdiction--Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Public Procurement Rules, 2004-------Rr. 34 & 48(7)---Procurement process, challenging of---Tender for procurement of…