' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner claims that he was a prospective bidder for the auction of collection rights in respect of the tax on transfer of immovable property. According to learned counsel, the petitioner had also obtained a call deposit of Rs,2500,000 in order to qualify as a bidder for the said auction.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent TMA, however, has pointed out that the call deposit, referred to by the petitioner, is dated 28-6-2004. The time and date of the auction was 9-00 a.m. On 28-6- 2004. According to condition No,7 of the terms of auction, all prospective bidders were required to deposit Rs,2500,000 in cash of in the form of call deposit with the nominated functionary of the TMA or the convener of the auction committee, prior to the time of auction. It is submitted by learned counsel for the TMA that the banks open at 9-00 a.m.
And even, according to the petitioner's own showing he had obtained a call deposit on the date of auction. On this basis, it was argued that the petitioner has not been able to show that he had the requisite call deposit at the relevant time to enable him to fulfill the conditions of auction.
3. This contention is well-founded and could not be controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. He merely contended that in actual fact no auction was held in respect of the abovementioned tax on 28-6-2004. This circumstance loses relevance because the petitioner himself has not been able to establish that he had fulfilled the preconditions for participating in the auction. He, therefore, has no locus standi in the matter.
4. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed.