| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4164 = 2026 SLD 4164 = 2026 CLC 818 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 5229 of 2026, heard on 24th February, 2026.
Presented By: Raheel Kamran, J
Yasir Akram Qureshi for Petitioner. Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for
Respondents. Rashid Mehmood Gill for
Respondent No. 2. Barrister Asim Malik for
Respondent No. 3. Ms. Qurat-ul-Ain, Law Officer, Office of Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore for
Respondent No. 4. Bilal Ahmad, Consultant (Legal) for
Respondent No. 5. Muhammad Zeeshan Akhtar, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Akhtar Aleem for
Respondent No. 7.
Writ Petition No. 5229 of 2026, heard on 24th February, 2026.
Presented By: Raheel Kamran, J
Yasir Akram Qureshi for Petitioner. Mohammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for
Respondents. Rashid Mehmood Gill for
Respondent No. 2. Barrister Asim Malik for
Respondent No. 3. Ms. Qurat-ul-Ain, Law Officer, Office of Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore for
Respondent No. 4. Bilal Ahmad, Consultant (Legal) for
Respondent No. 5. Muhammad Zeeshan Akhtar, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Akhtar Aleem for
Respondent No. 7.
Messrs POPULAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. ---Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Health and others ---Respondents
Law: Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009
Section: 26
Law: Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014
Section: 67, 67A
(a) Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act (VIII of 2009) S. 26---Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, Rr. 67 & 67A---Public procurement---Technical disqualification---End-user evaluation---Supervisory jurisdiction of Punjab Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA)---Scope---The procuring agency declared bids of respondents non-responsive based on end-user evaluation---Upon complaint, the findings were set aside and respondents were declared technically responsive---The petitioner (a competing bidder) challenged this intervention through filing of the present constitutional petition---Question requiring determination before the High Court was whether the Punjab Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) could set aside technical evaluation findings and declare bidders responsive in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction? ---Held: The supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon PPRA is not illusory; rather, it is intended to safeguard the integrity of procurement processes and to prevent mis-procurement---MD PPRA did not embark upon an independent technical reassessment of the products, as revealed by the impugned order---The reasoning assigned by the MD PPRA could not be termed extraneous or perverse---Technical disqualification must be grounded in objective criteria traceable to the bidding documents or statutory standards---Where rejection is founded upon subjective impressions of end users and in absence of demonstrable scientific validation or regulatory non-compliance, such determination becomes vulnerable to challenge on the touchstone of transparency and equal treatment---Once the foundational basis of rejection, i.e. arbitrary end-user evaluation, was declared void ab initio, the natural corollary was restoration of the complainants status as technically compliant bidders, subject to fulfilment of other codal requirements---Impugned order did not call for any interference---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 Rr. 67 & 67A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Procurement matters---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---The scope of judicial review in procurement…