Allied Constractors VS PPRA etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.1134 of 2020 Allied Contractors Versus Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and another S. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel proceedings proceedings where necessary. 08.03.2021 Ms. Komal Malik Joyia, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner.

Barrister Adeel Aftab, for respondent No.2.

C.M. No.1109/2021 Through the instant application, the applicant seeks an amendment in the title of the captioned writ petition so as to make the sole proprietor the petitioner.

The instant application is allowed. Let the amended memo of the parties be filed. Main case Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Allied Contractors, impugns the standard technical evaluation criteria used by the Pakistan Petroleum Limited (respondent No.2).

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the standard technical evaluation criteria, and submitted that according to the said criteria, a party which has been awarded two projects is disqualified from participating in the competitive process for the award of further projects by respondent No.2. He also submitted that if any party has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court against respondent No.2, the said standard technical evaluation criteria also makes that a disqualifying factor for such party to participate in a competitive process for the award of any contract by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ

petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.

3.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the contract for the construction of access road, well site location and other civil works (excluding sui fields) has already been awarded by respondent No.2 to another party, and that the said contract has almost been completed. He further submitted that presently there is no bid filed by the petitioner which is under consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.

4.I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

5.The question as to whether a party can be disqualified by the procuring agency on the ground that it has instituted litigation against such an agency was decided by this Court in the case of 7C’S Corporate Services Vs. Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (PLD 2017 Islamabad 115).

6.Since presently there is no bid of the petitioner which is under consideration or evaluation by respondent No.2, I am of the view that there is no dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 which warrants adjudication. It is well settled that this Court cannot embark on an academic exercise. In the event the petitioner’s bid is rejected in any future bidding process initiated by respondent No.2 on a ground which runs contrary to the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge such a rejection before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

7.In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed in limine.

(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB)

JUDGE

Sultan*