| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4289 = 2026 SLD 4289 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.3578 of 2024
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: Raja Muhammad Ali, Advocate.
Respondents No.1 &3 by: Mr. Faisal Irfan, Deputy Attorney General along with Abdul Nabi, Director Legal and Aitezaz Rashid, Assistant Legal PPRA.
Respondent No.4 by: M/s Muhammad Waqar Rana and Khalil Khan Sahibzada, Advocates.
Respondent No.5 by: M/s Ali Raza, Hamza Siddiqui and Sidharth Rashid Raza, Advocates. Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025.
Writ Petition No.3578 of 2024
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: Raja Muhammad Ali, Advocate.
Respondents No.1 &3 by: Mr. Faisal Irfan, Deputy Attorney General along with Abdul Nabi, Director Legal and Aitezaz Rashid, Assistant Legal PPRA.
Respondent No.4 by: M/s Muhammad Waqar Rana and Khalil Khan Sahibzada, Advocates.
Respondent No.5 by: M/s Ali Raza, Hamza Siddiqui and Sidharth Rashid Raza, Advocates. Date of Hearing: 12.03.2025.
M/s KARSAZ (Pvt.) Limited
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan and others Petitioner by: Raja Muhammad
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Law: Public Procurement Rules, 2004
Section: 34, 48(7), 4, 10, 15, 17, 23 & 30
Summary The petitioner challenged the PPRA order dated 06.08.2024, whereby its appeal under Rule 48(7), Public Procurement Rules, 2004 was dismissed. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the technical evaluation and reduction of EDS specifications. The High Court held that the petitioner had not established mala fide, discrimination, arbitrariness, or violation of procurement rules. It had also raised several new grounds before the High Court which were not raised before the GRC/PPRA. The Court further held that the procuring agency could revise specifications under Rule 34 for fair competition and efficient use of public funds. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. Tagline “A bidder cannot raise new grounds for the first time in writ jurisdiction, nor challenge a procurement process after waiver/acquiescence, without proving illegality, mala fide or arbitrariness.” ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.08.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (“PPRA”), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 48(7) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (“PP Rules, 2004”) against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (“GRC”) was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 issued a tender in 2022 for the procurement of the Explosive Detection System (“EDS”) and the petitioner was initially declared the successful bidder but the contract was later cancelled. In 2023, respondent No. 4 reissued the EDS tender, in which the petitioner participated again, and qualified as a bidder. However, the bidding process was again cancelled by respondent No.4/procuring agency despite the petitioner’s qualification (these two bidding processes were not challenged by the petitioner). Subsequently, a third tender for the procurement of a cargo/hold automatic EDS was floated by respondent No. 4 in May, 2024 and in response to this the petitioner as well as respondent No.5/M/s IAL participated in the bids and…