' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- Auction for collection of tax upon transfer of immovable property by Tehsil Municipal Administration, Khairpur Tamewali for a period of 1-9-2006 to 30-6-2007 has been challenged through this writ petition.
2. On behalf of Faisal Razzaq, the writ petitioner, it has been submitted that the auction of contract regarding collection of tax for transfer of immovable property was to be conducted on 31-8-2006 according to advertisement: Each of twelve persons had deposited Rs.48,200 as 2% of the reserve price as prescribed in the advertisement but according to record of TMA, only four persons had participated in the bid. Shah Alam was declared the highest bidder for 25,05,000. According to petitioner's learned counsel, on the same day i.e. 31-8-2006, when auction was to be conducted at 11.00 a.m., the meeting of House was also conducted on that date at the same time. Tehsil Municipal Officer had written a letter to Tehsil Nazim for the approval of auction in favour of highest bidder on 2-9-2006 as the House of Tehsil Council in its meeting held on 31-8-2006 had approved the highest bid in favour of Shah Alam but the highest bidder was issued letter. To deposit 10% of bid money and the Ist instalment on 30-8-2006 while work order was issued on 1-9-2006.
Therefore, it was a pre-planned move to grant the contract to Shah Alam, respondent. As per learned counsel, in the preparation of papers fakery was the rule, as the contract which was executed in favour of Tehsil Municipal Administration Khairpur Tamewali had not contained the date of execution. Bank guarantee or surety was also not obtained according to Rule 25 of the Punjab Local Government (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules 2003. All the proceedings/papers were prepared fictitiously and proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law. Tehsil Municipal Administration Officer, Muhammad Hanif Qureshi, was the person against whom the earlier decision was announced which was reported in 2005 YLR 1788 (Saeed Ahmad v. Tehsil Municipal Administration, Ahmadpur East, etc.). The same person had again acted in this bid also, therefore, auction may be set aside.
3. Mr. Ijaz. Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4 submits that there was no illegality or fraud in the conduct of or in the preparation of papers. It is an admitted fact that advertisement was made for 31-8-2006 and auction was held on the same date. Meeting of the House was also held on the aforesaid date. Therefore, it cannot be considered that there was any commission of fraud or forgery and fake papers were prepared. Mere mention of date on a paper as of 30-8-2006 or the time of 11-00 a.m. In the register of meeting of House of TMA was an accidental slip, not fatal to the proceedings as it could occur due to human err. To quote an example, learned counsel has referred to index of writ petition which contained the date of 12th December 2006 while affidavit attached with this writ petition was containing the date of 14-12- 2006. As per learned counsel, the persons who had participated in the bids had signed the same.
While the persons who had deposited the security had also signed on a. Separate sheet vide Annexure "RF" & Annexure "RE". Muhammad Nawaz, who is stated to be the highest bidder for Rs.59,01,000 had not filed the writ petition whereas the writ petitioner who had not participated in the bid after deposit of reserve price had not filed writ petition. Mere to create fuss and disturbance, after the passage of about four and a half months from the auction conducted o 31- 8-2006. Affidavit of Faisal Razzaq or. Umer Farooq had not given out any such version that there was no bid on 31-8-2006. In fact, due to professional rivalry, the writ petition has been filed, which is the routine of these persons who generally participate in the proceedings and act in such like manners to ruin the business of others. The petitioner has raised factual controversy, for which the writ petition is not the proper remedy. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that present bid was the highest bid from the earlier bids having been conducted from 2001 to 2006 as it had fetched Rs.25,05,000 for only 10 months while the bid of previous year from 1-7-2005 to 30-6- 2006 for one year period was made for Rs.24,10,000. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. On behalf of respondent No.5, learned counsel has submitted that according to 2001 MLD 151 (Sh.
'Javed Khalid Akhtar v. D.0 Khanewal etc.) re-auction cannot be ordered simply on offering higher sum by Unsuccessful bidder qua the one in whose favour auction was confirmed. If said state of affair is allowed to happen and continue, there would be no end to offers and every prospective or unsuccessful-bidder would (with a fresh offer) be able to dislodge the previous contractor who had fortunately succeeded in auction. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petitioner had got efficacious and alternate remedy of appeal under section 190 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001. Therefore, the instant writ petition is not competent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that in the presence of even alternate remedy, the writ petition can be filed, entertained and adjudicated upon. He has referred to PLD 2004 SC 271 (Brigadier Muhammad Bashir v. Abdul Karim and others), 1997 CLC 106 (M/S. N.S. Enterprises v.
Government of Pakistan etc.) PLD 1997 Lahore 38 (Manzoor Ahmad Watto v. Federation of Pakistan and three others), 1996 CLC 182 (Pervaiz Iqbal and 2 others v. Prpvincial Transport Authority Sindh and another and 2000 CLC 54 (Kanwar Iqbal Talib, duly authorized Director v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Local Government Department Lahore and another).
6. Arguments of learned counsel heard and record perused. There is one glaring feature of the ease and that is the delay in filing of the writ petition. It is an admitted fact that auction had taken place on 31-8-2006 and the contractor (the highest bidder) had also commenced his collection of tax work since then. If there was no auction or papers were fictitiously prepared, then the writ petitioner must have arisen to the occasion with immediate action. I have not been able to find a sound reply as to why the writ petitioner had not participated in the bid after deposit of reserve price and that why he permitted the lowest bidder to be granted the auction? Where is the highest bidder (Muhammad Nawaz), why he has not turned up to file this writ petition, if his highest bid was not accepted? Even if the writ petitioner is held to be highest bidder then why he had waited for more than four months to come to this Court, permitting Shah Alam, respondent to take away his chance and to work for four months. The filing of writ after the passage of four months proves the concoction of the story of events and the ingenuineness of the version of writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 20-11-2006 and the writ petitioner had allowed to pass a period of four months while two months more had gone in this litigation and now remains only four months in the expiry of contract period. As it was a periodical contract of only 10 months, therefore, under these circumstances, the writ petitioner had to be I more cautious and careful and must have approached this Court with promptitude and immediate action after the auction was done and he was not granted the contract. From this delay in approaching to this Court, it can easily be conceived that in fact, no forgery was committed and no violation was made during the conduct and finalization of the bid. Otherwise, the writ petitioner must have approached the Court or at least to the Secretary of. Local Government within a couple of days from the acceptance of bid.
Why the writ petitioner had /not filed an appeal under section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001 is another reason going against his interest. The prescribed period of limitation to file an appeal is also another barring fact showing that the writ petitioner was in fact not ready to contest the bid for the sum for which the bid was accepted. There is no proof that writ petitioner had participated in the bid. Only four persons have participated although 12 persons had deposited the call deposit. The petitioner was not in the list of bidder. There is no proof that the petitioner had participated actually in bid proceedings but the 'list of bid was substituted or fabricated. Therefore, petitioner has got no locus standi to challenge the auction. Even if it may be the version of the petitioner, it requires factual inquiry which cannot be conducted unless proper evidence is brought on the record and appreciated. I may here clarify that mere wrong mention of date on one or two papers or omission to enter the date, cannot be considered as pointed out by Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Ansari, learned Advocate that actual facts had not occurred on those dates and that dates were factually incorrect with a view to commit ,forgery and to conceal it, papers were ante c or post dated. No doubt, the writ petition can be filed in the presence of alternate remedy available to a party yet each case has to be seen in accordance with its own facts. In the instant case, when factual inquiry was required, then appeal or suit was the proper remedy and not this writ petition. Therefore, decisions referred to by the learned counsel are not helpful to the writ petitioner who had not participated in the bid even and had not come to this Court with clean hands.
7. ' Therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.