The petitioner states that the respondent T.M.A. Has awarded a contract for collection of tax on immovable property to respondent No.5 without holding any auction as required by the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003. It is specifically contended that auction of the aforesaid collection contract was to be held on 13-10-2004 as advertised in the press. The petitioner along with a number of other bidders were present on 13-10-2004 along with their respective call deposits as required by the press advertisement. However, in an underhand and surreptitious manner, without holding the advertised auction, the contract has been awarded by the T.M.A.
2. To examine the contentions of the petitioner, notice was issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance. The record of the aforesaid auction has also been examined.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and seven other bidders were fully prepared for participation in the auction and each of them had with them call deposits of Rs.2,50,000 dated 12-10-2004 or earlier. According to them, the auction was not held as noted above. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the auction proceedings were all fabricated. He drew my attention to the Fard Nilam dated 13-10-2004. From the same, it is clear that Rao Ashfaq, the successful bidder, had purportedly submitted a call deposit made by United Bank Limited, Kabirwala on 13-10-2004. Likewise the other bidder shown to have participated in the bid, namely, Rao Jamshaid had also submitted a call deposit from United Bank Limited, Kabirwala dated 13-10-2004. Learned counsel contended that Kabirwala is almost 200 kilometers from Ahmadpur East and considering that the Bank opens at 9-00 a.m., it is physically impossible for the aforesaid bidders to be present for the auction at 10-00 a.m.
4. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioner had spent the time, energy and resources to be present for the auction along with the call deposit of Rs.2,50,000. Furthermore, the petitioner had participated in earlier bids also. Moreover, in the present petition, the petitioner had stated that he was prepared to submit a bid of Rs.95,00,000 for the contract which has been awarded to respondent No.5 for a sum of Rs.64,05,000 only. It was argued that these circumstances were sufficient to show the bona fides of the petitioner and to establish that the auction confirmed in favour of the respondent No.5 was fictitious and the proceedings thereof had been subsequently fabricated.
5. Learned counsel for the T.M.A. Argued that earlier attempts were made to auction the above- referred collection but had failed either because no bidder appeared or because the successful bidder refused to enter into a contract and, thus, forfeited his call deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A., however, did acknowledge that the petitioner participated in the bid held on 14- 6-2004 and made an offer of Rs.75,00,000. He also acknowledged that in a subsequent bid held on 27-7-2004 the petitioner in connected Writ Petition No.3558 of 2004 had made a bid of Rs.86,00,000. He, however, contended that the aforesaid auction was held along with other auctions for Tonga stand, slaughterhouse, Tehbazari, etc. On the same date i.e. 13-10-2004. On this basis, it was argued that it was not plausible that only the disputed auction was not held.
6. I have considered the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the T.M.A. Relating to the auction proceedings. It is clear to me that respondent No.5 Rao Ashfaq and the other purported bidder Rao Jamshaid could not possibly have obtained their respective call deposits from U.B.L., Kabirwala after 9-00 a.m. On 13-10-2004, and travelled 200 kilometers to Ahmadpur East for the purpose of participating in the bidding at 10- 00 a.m. On the same day. Furthermore, the fact that the present petitioner and the petitioner in connected Writ Petition No.3558 of 2004 had participated in earlier bids for the same contract and had with them the requisite call deposits, shows that they were bona fide bidders. Their call deposits were made on or before 12-10-2004 and they were, thus, fully equipped to participate in bidding at 10-00 a.m. These circumstances taken together, leave me in no manner of doubt that the open auction for the contract in question was not held as required by law and the contract was illegally awarded to respondent No.5. The award of the contract to respondent No.5 is, therefore, set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. Has at this stage, pointed out that in order to preclude the possibility of collusion between the bidders and to prevent any backtracking by the present petitioner and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3558 of 2004, these petitioners be required to make an undertaking in Court that they are committed to the bid of, at least, Rs.95,00,000 for the aforesaid contract as has been set out in the present writ petition. The petitioners, namely, Saeed Ahmad in the present petition and Zamurd lqbal in Writ Petition No.3558 of 2004 are present in person. They have been identified by their respective learned counsel. Both of them undertake that they shall be bound to offer a bid for the above referred contract of, at least, Rs.95,00,000. They further confirm that if after the bidding has taken place, there is a bidder who makes an offer of a higher sum than the petitioners and thereafter does not enter into a contract with the respondent T.M.A., they shall nonetheless remain committed to the bids which they have finally submitted at the auction. The afore-named petitioners have also fully understood the consequences which may follow if the aforesaid undertaking is violated.
8. The auction shall now be held on 1-11-2004, it shall be advertised in "Daily Khabrain Multan" and "Daily Dastoor Bahawalpur" Expenses for these advertisements shall be deposited by the petitioners in equal portion with Mr. Ahmad Mansoor Chishti, A.A.-G. By tomorrow so that the advertisements are duly published by 23-10-2004 so as to give seven clear days between the advertisement and the proposed date of auction. In order to ensure transparency at the auction, Mr. Ahmad Mansoor Chishti, A.A.-G. Shall be present at the auction and shall prepare a report of the same, which he shall submit in Court. Tentatively a sum of Rs.10,000 each shall be paid to Mr. Ahmad Mansoor Chishti, A.A.-G. By Zamurd Iqbal and Saeed Ahmad.