Umar Ata Bandial, J.-This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad dismissing the appellant's writ petition filed in public interest to dispute the anticipated award of contract for electro mechanical works, Lot 3.2 of the Golden Gol Hydro power Project ("Project") at Chitral. The appellant claims to be the President of Centre for Empowering Society ("CES"), a Non-Governmental Organization ("NGO"), which allegedly aims at transparency in the government actions. Neither the writ petition nor the present appeal contains any constitutive document of CES to ascertain its legal status, objects and activities.
2. Be that as it may, the Project comprises three Lots, namely, Lot 2 (Civil Works of Weir and its allied Works), Lot 3.1 (Civil Works of Construction) and Lot '3.2 (E&M Equipment i.e, electromechanical equipment for the Project). Lot 2 and Lot 3.1 of the project were tendered and awarded in February 2011. Tenders for E&M equipment (Lot 3.2) were invited and opened on 30.06.2011, wherein three pre- qualified companies submitted their bids which were evaluated. The evaluation process drew criticism and controversy resulting in complaints by the Transparency International Pakistan ("TIP") to WAPDA and to this Court. The National Accountability Bureau ("NAB") also objected to the bid evaluation process. Resultantly, WAPDA annulled the bidding process vide letter dated 12.04:2013, addressed to M/s. Rain Power ASA Norway ("M/s. Rain Power") and M/s. Andritz Hydro GMBH ("M/s. Andritz"). According to the parawise comments filed in the learned High Court by WAPDA, M/s. AlFajar International (Regd.) ("M/s. Al-Fajar"), a local consortium partner of M/s. Rain Power, challenged the annulment order through a writ petition. Thereafter, apparently some negotiations were held and the said writ petition was withdrawn, followed by a letter of intent for award of Lot 3.2 to M/s. Rain Power. The said letter of intent conflicted with the annulment order dated 12.04.2013, again drawing criticism and controversy. In reaction, WAPDA on 29.10.2013 rejected the conditional response given by M/s. Rain Power.
3. In the foregoing background, WAPDA decided to go for a fresh tender for Lot 3.2 for E&M equipment. Public advertisements were published in the newspapers; however, more importantly since competition was confined to seven pre-qualified entities, therefore, WAPDA also invited each of the said pre-qualified entities to submit bids on 26.11.2013. Out of the said potential candidates, only one i.e, M/s. Andritz filed its bid which was, accepted by letter of acceptance dated 15.01.2014.
4. The underlying writ petition in the present case was filed by the appellant on 14.12.2013, i.e, prior to the issuance of letter of acceptance dated 15.01.2014. The ground of challenge in the writ petition is that only one entity has tendered its bid; there is lack of competition which will lead to loss of public exchequer. The said writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2014; Neither before the learned High Court nor before this Court has the appellant elaborated on its objections to the letter of acceptance dated 15.01.2014. Also notwithstanding the chequered history of the first round of the tender bidding, the current second round of tender bidding has not drawn any complaint, criticism or objection from the public or private sector watchmen like NAB, TIP or the media. The written statement filed by Mis. Andritz (Respondent No,4) before the learned High Court states that the completion date of Lot 2 and Lot 3.1 of the project is in the year 2015. However, it is stated that unless the E&M works or Lot 3.2 is completed, there is no possibility of the project being commissioned. It is objected that neither the appellant/writ petitioner nor any other agency has highlighted any wrong doing in the award of contract of Lot 3.2. The para-wise comments filed by WAPDA echo the same objections with the addition that the present challenge by the appellant is inspired by disappointed contenders for the contract and otherwise, the lack of any disclosure about the appellant's qualification and legal status as also of his NGO make the appellant's remedial initiative both suspect and malicious.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having perused the documents filed by them before us, a few observations about the appellant's case can be made immediately. The appellant's case lacks any concrete allegation of wrong doing against the award of contract for Lot 3.2. Presently, the second round of tender bidding is disputed by the appellant but that too with reference to the facts of the first round of the bidding process. As such the allegation leveled by the appellant namely, that the bid given by M/s. And Ritz is defective and unconscionable, is conjectural. In this scenario, the appellant's challenge appears to be speculative, hypothetical and therefore colourable.
6. The Court is, however, not inclined without evidence to attribute motives to the appellant.
Otherwise, even bonafide public interest litigation may be discouraged. It must, nevertheless, be emphasized that public interest litigation undertaken by a citizen must in the first place transparently demonstrate its complete bona fides: that such litigation is not being undertaken to serve a private or vested interest but is demonstrably aimed at serving the public interest, good or welfare. These attributes in a public interest initiative by a spirited citizen have already been dilated upon by this Court in ECHO West International (Put) Ltd. Vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2009 SC 406), Iqbal Haider vs. Capital Development Authority (PLD 2006 SC 394) and Javed Ibrahim Paracha vs. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2004 SC 482).
7. A third feature of public interest litigation whit I Is derived from the aforementioned two attributes, is that the challenge brought must be based on concrete facts that are duly substantiated or are verifiable. In the present case, notwithstanding the lapse of more than 14 months, after the second round of bidding concluded on 26.11.2013, resulting in issuance of letter of acceptance dated 15.01.2014, no factual material was brought by the appellant before the learned Islamabad High Court or before this Court to substantiate or exemplify the allegation made against Respondent No,4, the contract awardee. The Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior courts is exercised to safeguard and promote the public interest and not to entertain and promote speculative, hypothetical or malicious attacks that block or suspend the performance of the executive functions by government. In the present case, contract execution of Lot 3.2 has not progressed since issuance of the letter of acceptance dated 15.01.2014. Public interest has actually suffered as a result of the delay. By the state of disclosure of allegations, facts and evidence, the appellant has ailed to demonstrate any wrongdoing and harm having been done to Public interest.
We also find that for the lack of requisite disclosure about the appellant's status and activities, his present initiative fails to portray his bona fides. For the said deficiencies in this appeal and the unclear status and object of the appellant, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.