RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J. - The petitioner has challenged in this petition the validity of letter bearing No. NTO-99/544, dated 12.6.1999 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Kasur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Riasat Ali petitioner submitted an application for purchase of tractor to the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur under Tractor Subside Scheme, announced by the Chief Minister, Punjab and notified by the Agricultural Department, Government of Punjab vide Notification Nos. SOA(P)/98, dated 25.7.1998 and SOA(P), dated 5.10.1998. The petitioner's application was entertained and he was placed under waiting list at number 2 drawn on 19.10.1998 and was advised to make necessary arrangement for booking of one locally manufactured tractor through authorized dealer of his on choice immediately through letter (Annexure-A)
3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted comments pursuance to the order of this Court, wherein, they have stated that the petitioner, despite rtotice, failed to ensure booking of Green Tractor in view of government instructions and under condition No. 5 of the application form, therefore, the tractor was allotted to respondent No. 4, who was next to the petitioner in the waiting list.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners was involved in a criminal case, therefore, could not arrange booking in time, that delay of nominal period in arranging for booking is not sufficient to decline his right which had accrued to him being at serial No. 2 of the waiting list.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner failed to fulfil the condition for booking of the tractor in time, therefore, respondent No. 1 was competent to allot the tractor to respondent No. 4 in accordance with condition No. 5 of the application form, submitted by the petitioner, that the petitioner could not arrange money nor he contacted Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan for this purpose, therefore, grant of tractor to respondent No 4 is justified.
6. , Heard. Record perused.
7. The petitioner was at serial No. 2 in the waiting list. The leter (Annex-A) was issued to him to make necessary ,arrangement for booking of one locally manufactured tractor of his on choice immediately but he failed to do so in time, therefore, respondent No. 4, who was next to him in the waiting list was granted the tractor. The perusal of the record, comments and reply of the bank clearly show that the petitioner had not arranged booking of the tractor in time, therefore, respondent No. 4 was entitled for grant of tractor. The petitioner failed to fulfil the condition, required for grant of tractor under the Green Tractor Scheme.
8. The petitioner is still in jail in a case under Section 302, P.P.C. And probably because of poor financial condition, he could not arrange booking of the tractor, therefore, giant of tractor to respondent No. 4 in these circumstances is justified. This petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to cost.