' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner has called in question auction proceedings dated 6- 3-2007, of Annual Mandi Mawaishian Baisakhi, Aimanabad, Gujranwala.
2. According to the petitioner he is a contractor duly licensed by the competent authority. The respondent/Town Municipal Administration advertised in Daily Nawa-e-Waqat dated 25-2-2007, for the auction of lease rights of the Annual Mandi Mawaishian Baisakhi, Aimanabad, Gujranwala, for the period of 11-4-2007 to 18-4-2007. According to the advertisement, the auction took place on 6-3-2007, at 10 a.m. In the office of T.M.O.
3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner reached on 6-3-2007, at the specified place at 10 a.m. The auction did not take place at the given time. The petitioner was informed subsequently, that the lease rights had already been auctioned in favour of respondent No,4 against a consideration of Rs,18,15,000. The auction proceedings took place secretly and no one was allowed to participate in the same, including the petitioner, though he had reached at the office of respondent No,2 at the fixed time. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner was ready to pay Rs,19,50,000 against the bid of respondent No,4 which is Rs,18,15,000 only.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submitted that the petitioner had incorrectly stated the facts. According to him time of auction was fixed/notified at 10 a.m. On 6-3- 2007. The auction proceedings started in time at 10 a.m. Four persons including respondent No,4 participated in the said proceedings. The participants also deposited their respective CDRs, The bids were called in the presence of Auction Committee as per rules. The bids of four participants were accordingly recorded, whereof, the respondent No,4 succeeded as he offered the maximum amount i,e, Rs,18,15,000. He categorically pointed out that respective participants affixed their signatures at the bid-sheet which is placed on the record. According to him, the auction proceedings concluded at 10-45 a.m. After the completion of auction proceedings, the Auction Committee forwarded the report for its approval from the council, through the Nazim. The council duly approved the auction proceedings in its session held on 28-3-2007. The learned counsel aggressively asserted that auction proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law and rules.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No,4 almost endorsed the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No,2. However, he also referred to rule 11(5) of the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 which reads as under:-- "The offer or bid once accepted by the council concerned shall not be repudiated after entering into agreement."
6. I have heard the learned counsel and considered their arguments as noted above. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that auction proceedings were not held as required under the law and rules, particularly, that the respondent No,2 decided in favour of respondent No,4, while sitting in his room. I have minutely perused the record produced by respondents Nos.2 and 4. The above allegation/assertion stands refuted from the record produced in the Court. As a matter of fact, the record shows that four participants took part in the proceedings which were held at 10 a.m. On 6-3-2007. The auction proceedings were also signed by Members of Auction Committee and subsequently it was approved by the council as required under the law. Therefore, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, prima facie, not supported by the record. Similarly, the learned counsel for respondent No,4 has rightly pointed out rule 11(5) of the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 which clearly states that "once offer or bid is accepted by the council it shall not be repudiated after entering into agreement".
7. It seems that petitioner decided to participate in the auction after the time of auction proceedings was over. Record also shows that prior to the present auction, he used to participate in the same auction but somehow he missed it this time. However, I am satisfied that auction proceedings were finalized in favour of respondent No,4, following the rules and the prescribed procedure by the competent authority. Therefore, there is no reason for me to interfere in the same.
8. There is another aspect of the matter, since the petitioner had failed to participate in the auction proceedings, therefore, he cannot claim himself to be an "aggrieved person" in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution to file the present petition.
9. S anctity and authenticity, is attached with the Government acts which are duly performed in accordance with law and rules; if they are upset only on the ground that somebody can offer more money, the above time-tested concept would be impaired and faded away, it would also amount to frustrate the intent of the law and rules on the subject. For further guidance a reference may be made to Muhammad Arshad v. Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department and others 2005 CLC 939 and Haji Faiz Muhammad v. Mines, Labour Welfare Commissioner and others 2007 M LD 423.
10. As a sequel to the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.