' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that an order dated 1-9-1997 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 31-10-1997 passed by respondent No.3 are illegal and void. The appellant/plaintiff also sought recovery of Rs.8,45,000 which is the amount he had deposited with the respondent Zila Council. The suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.8,45,000 by the learned trial Court vide decree dated 21-10-2003. However, on appeal, the learned District Judge has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff.
2. The appellant was the highest bidder at an auction of the rights for collecting tax on transfer of immovable property of District Hafizabad. The bid made by him was for Rs.1,11,00,000 and the period of the contract was from 1-7-1997 to 30-6-1998. It is not dispute between the parties that a sum of Rs.8,45,000 was deposited by the appellant/plaintiff towards his obligations in respect of the above-referred contract.
3. The contention of the appellant/ plaintiff is that under the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, the Zila Council was, first of all, obliged to convey the acceptance of the house in respect of the appellant's bid and only thereafter the appellant would have been required to make payment of the sums stipulated. Learned counsel stated that neither the acceptance was communicated to the appellant nor was any agreement entered into between the appellant and the Zila Council. In these circumstances, it is argued, the Zila Council could neither cancel the contract awarded to the appellant and nor could it forfeit the admitted sum of Rs.8,45,000 which was deposited by the appellant.
4. The learned Appellate Court proceeded on the premise that the appellant was aware of the acceptance of his bid and, therefore, he could not advance the above arguments. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to rule 7, sub-rules (1), (2) and (5) to substantiate his contention that without communication of acceptance of his bid and without executing an agreement awarding the contract for collection rights, there was no duty imposed on the appellant to deposit any further amounts which have been mentioned in the order (Exh.P.1) whereby the appellant's contract was cancelled.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that Rule 7 itself is in clear and unambiguous terms. According to the said rule, 1/10th of the total amount was to be deposited by the appellant within three days of the acceptance of his bid. The amount of 1/10th comes to Rs.1,110,000. The appellant had initially deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000 and thereafter he deposited a further sum of Rs.3,45,000. In total, the petitioner has deposited the above-referred amount of Rs.8,45,000. This falls short of the 1/10th amount required under Rule7(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules. The learned Appellate Court has rightly noted that the deposit of Rs.3,45,000 subsequent to the auction is clearest possible proof that the appellant was fully aware of the acceptance of his bid, but chose not to fulfil the requirements of Rule 7 aforesaid.
6. I have also come to the conclusion that this finding of the learned appellate Court is unexceptionable because the deposit of the additional sum of Rs.3,45,000 is otherwise unexplainable. It, therefore, follows that the appellant had failed to meet its commitment by depositing 1/10th of the bid amount i.e. Rs.1,110,000 as required by rule 7 of the Lease Rules. The appellant, therefore, by his own acts and omissions, rendered the deposited amount of Rs.8,45,000 liable to forfeiture under rule 8 of the Lease Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to Exh.D.11 which is a document showing the relevant notings made by the functionaries of the respondents in relation to the dispute in the case. From para. 'B' in Exh.D.11, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to show that a notice was required to be issued by the appellant before the contract awarded to him could have been cancelled. This submission is misconceived because rule 7 itself specifies the obligation whereunder the appellant was required to deposit 1/10th of the bid amount. In these circumstances, no separate notice to the appellant was necessary.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned appellate decree is unexceptionable.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.