' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos.5665 and 7183 of 2005 as common question of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Brief facts of these two writ petitions are as under:-- ' W.P. No.5665 of 2005 ' The respondent T.M.A., Shujabad made an advertisement in the daily 'Khabrain' dated 28-8-2005 for the auction of the rights of collection of municipal tax leviable on immovable property and the date of auction was fixed as 8-9-2005 at 11-00 a.m. The petitioner after depositing Rs.2,00,000 as call deposit, participated in the auction and gave the highest bid which was accepted and the acceptance of the bid was conveyed to him vide notice dated 8-9-2005, whereby he was directed to deposit 12% of the bid money, with advance instalments of the months of July, August and September and also the salaries of the employees for the months of July and August amounting to Rs.15,000. He deposited Rs.8,00,000 on 13-9-2005 as 12 per cent of the bid money but raised protest before the respondents against the advance instalments of the months of July, August and September and the salaries of the employees for the months of July and August amounting to Rs.15,000.
' W.P. No.7183 of 2005 ' First of all it is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition this writ petition was filed, challenging the notice dated 19-12-2005 for the deposit of the amount of lease instalments and salaries of the employees for the further period of months of September, October, November and December, 2005 prior to the issuance of the notice dated 19-12-2005 the facts are the same as in W.P. No.5665 of 2005.
3. Learned counsel- for the petitioner has contended that prior and subsequent to the date of auction, the demand of the respondents for the deposit of instalments of July, August, September, October, November and December, 2005 is highly unjust and illegal because neither an agreement has been executed in favour of the petitioner nor the charge has been given to the petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Muhammad Haqnawaz Bhalli v. The Administrator, Zila Council, Narowal and 2 others (1997 CLC 673).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A. Has supported the impugned notices and the parawise comments submitted by the respondent T.M.A. And submitted that as the petitioner signed the bid sheet being the highest bidder after reading the terms and conditions of the auction, as such the demand of the instalments and salaries of the employees is legal and fair.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner being the successful bidder, deposited Rs.8,00,000 as 12 per cent of the bid money, meaning thereby that he had accepted the impugned notice dated 8- 9-2005 because one of the demands written in the said notice had been fulfilled.
7. As far as the contention of learned counsel that prior and subsequent to the date of auction, the demand of the respondents for the deposit of instalments of July, August, September, October, November and December, 2005 is highly unjust and illegal because neither any agreement is executed in favour of the petitioner nor the charge has been given to the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that as the petitioner had accepted the conditions of the auction after signing the same, there is no question of denying the demands made by the respondents through the impugned notices dated 8-9-2005 and 19-12-2005. According to the impugned notice dated 19-12- 2005, the respondent did not make demand regarding the months of July and August rather the petitioner was required to execute the contract from the month of September, 2005. It is not denying of fact that according to notice dated 8-9-2005, the contractor was required to execute the contract with the T.M.A. Within _three days. Even otherwise when the petitioner was required to execute the agreement and take charge from the period of September, 2005, the non-compliance of the same on behalf of the petitioner is not understandable. In support of this proposition, rule 17, of the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 is reproduced below:- - "17. DUES AND DEPOSITS.---(1) After receipt of communication of acceptance of bid or offer from the Local Government the contractor 'shall immediately deposit at least one tenth of the amount of offer or bid in the funds of respective Local Government and enter into written agreement with the respective Local Government within three days.
(2) The remaining amount of offer or bid shall be paid by the contractor to the Local Government in such equal monthly instalments that the whole amount be recovered at least one month earlier of the completion of contract.
(3) The instalments shall be paid by the contractor in advance by the fifth day of each month".
8. A bare perusal of clause 11 of the conditions of the auction reveals that the petitioner should approach the Arbitrator appointed under Arbitration Act, 1940. In support of the said clause the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department Lahore had issued a Notification No.SOTAX(LG)2- 253/97 dated 26th February, 2005 whereby he appointed D.C.O. Of the concerned District as Arbitrator in case of contracts exceeding Rs.25.00 lacs. In support of the said proposition, rule 24 of the said Rules is as under:-- "DISPUTES.---(1) In case of any dispute arising between the contractor and Local Government regarding contract or any other matter arising out of contract, the contractor and the Local Government shall have a right to resolve the dispute through arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940".
As instead of approaching the arbitrator the petitioner has come to this Court, these writ petitions do not lie against the impugned notices. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Shagufta Begum v.
The Income Tax Officer, Circle-XI, Zone-B, Lahore (PLD 1989 SC 360). Even otherwise neither the lease has been cancelled nor 12% of the bid money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited, as such these writ petitions are pre-mature. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khoso v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Jhatpat (Dera Allah Yar) Branch and 3 others (2000 SCM R 1017).
9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in these two petitions and dismiss the same.