LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has reinforced the supervisory role of Punjab Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) in ensuring transparency, fairness and technical objectivity in public procurement involving public funds.

Justice Raheel Kamran announced a reserved judgment dismissing a petition filed by M/s Popular International (Pvt.) Ltd, challenging an order of the PPRA regarding a medical procurement dispute for the year 2025–26.

According to details, a large-scale procurement process initiated by the Punjab government in April 2025 for bulk purchase of medical devices, including surgical disposables, implants and sutures for Lahore General Hospital.

The petitioner, M/s Popular International, and other firms participated in the e-tender.

After technical evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), disputes emerged regarding the responsiveness of certain bidders.

The petitioner challenged aspects of the evaluation before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), which modified parts of the TEC’s decision.

Subsequently, other bidders approached the MD PPRA under the applicable procurement rules.

The MD PPRA set aside the decisions of both the TEC and GRC—limited to the disputed items—and directed the procuring agency to reconstitute the GRC with independent technical members for a fresh decision.

A counsel for the petitioner argued that the MD PPRA exceeded its authority under the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009 and the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 by interfering in technical findings without identifying any procedural illegality or violation of law.

He contended that the original GRC decision was reasoned and lawful. He said there was no evidence of mala fide or mis-procurement.

Justice Kamran held that PPRA possesses supervisory authority over grievance redressal mechanisms under Rule 67A of the 2014 Rules.

The judge observed that the MD PPRA had not substituted technical findings nor declared any bidder responsive or non-responsive.

Instead, he said, the PPRA expressed concern over the absence of “scientific evidence-based backing” in certain technical rejections and potential exclusion of products with internationally recognized certifications.

Finding no jurisdictional infirmity or legal perversity in the PPRA’s order, the LHC judge dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2026