' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI,J.--The Mines and Minerals Department, Sargodha announced an auction for a Mining Lease No. ML-SRG-ORG-Sand Dhodha-III measuring 480.89 acres. Auction proceedings were fixed for 15-8-2006. On the said date, 44 persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 participated. The petitioner offered maximum bid of Rs.15 lacs and the same was accepted by the Auctioning Committee. One fourth of the bid money was deposited at the fall of the hammer as required under the law and rules. The petitioner deposited Rs,700,000 in the account of Director General Mines and Minerals in the Prime Commercial Bank, Sargodha for issuance of work order. However, on 17-8-2006,, the respondent No.4 offered Rs.20 lacs through an application to the licensing authority and attached a CDR amount of Rs. 100,000 for the same Sand Block which was auctioned on 15-8-2006 in favour of the petitioner. The licensing authority rejected the offer of respondent No.4 as there was no provision of accepting offer after completion of auction proceedings under the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002.
2. The respondent No.4 filed a n appeal before respondent No.2 which was dismissed on 8-9-2006 after hearing both the parties. Nevertheless, on 20-9-2006, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition before respondent No. 1, the revision was accepted on 30-9-2006 by respondent No. 1 and he set aside the order of the licensing authority as well as of appellate authority. Respondent No.l issued a direction for reauction of the Block. The learned counsel has impugned order of respondent No.l dated 30-9-2006 as against the law and rules.
3. Respondents Nos.l to 3 filed their comments. Respondent No.4 separately put across his view in defence of the impugned order, 4, According to the learned counsel for respondent No.4, merely participation in the auction proceedings does not confer any legal right on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that contractual liabilities cannot be enforced under the constitutional jurisdiction. He also submits that disputed facts cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction.
5. The legal propositions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 are correct, however, these propositions are not relevant or attracted in the present case. In the present case, facts are not disputed. Similarly, there is no contractual liability which is being sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His grievance is that respondents are trying to avoid to perform their functions/liabilities, moreover, impugned order has been passed in violation of law and rules. This aspect of the matter gets strength from almost all the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. For example, in 2003 CLD 153, it was held that government must act fairly, reasonably, justly and not arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner, It is observed that entire process of tendering and subsequent award of contract should be transparent, fair and reasonable. In 2001 CLC 1850, it was held that High Court was competent to issue directions to the persons or .Authorities performing their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or the Province on the application of aggrieved party. In 2001 YLR 2741, it was held that parties are bound to honour their commitment/ agreement under Islamic norms of justice. In 2001 YLR 1066, it was held that an aggrieved party can file constitutional petition for performance of legal duty against functionaries of the State. In PLD 2001 Lahore 426, it was held that a public functionary in a contract has committed breach in violation of statutory duty and the dispute can be resolved without examination of controversial question of fact in the ordinary circumstances.
6. Let us examine the above legal propositions in the light of replies of respondents Nos.1 to 3.
According to their written reply, it is admitted that after auction was over on 15-8-2006, respondent No.4 offered Rs.20 lacs vide an application dated 17-8-2006. It may be reiterated that auction had taken place on 15-8-2006. Respondent No.4 was present there who opted not to participate in the auction. It is also admitted that licensing authority rejected the offer of respondent No.4 having not been covered under the rules. It means the respondents have accepted the plea of the petitioner that auction proceedings dated 15-8-2006 were competently and duly conducted. In the comments of respondents Nos,1 to 3, it is clearly admitted that respondent No.4 himself was present on 15-8-2006 at the time of auction in the auction hall and also signed on the terms and conditions of auction yet he did not offer any bid. The bid of the petitioner was accepted as the highest in the presence of respondent No.4. It is also admitted in reply of respondents Nos.1 to 3 that despite deposit of security, work order could not be issued as status quo was issued by appellate authority and civil Court which was subsequently recalled. Likewise, it would be relevant to examine the impugned order passed by respondent No. In the impugned order, the respondent No.1 admitted in the last para, "the petitioner (respondent No.4) got himself registered for the said auction and was present in the auction hall and signed terms and conditions before start of auction. The petitioner (respondent No.4), however, did not participate/offer any bid during the auction. After the auction, the petitioner (respondent No.4 offered Rs.20 lacs vide application dated 17-8-2006".
7. The respondent No.1 did not mention any violation of law or any disputed fact. On the other hand, the respondents could not point out any violation or disobedience of rules on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, referred to rule 235(2) of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, which deals with the revisional powers. Rule 235(2) says, "The Government may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under these rules to examine the validity and the legality of the order of auction and may pass such orders as it may deem necessary." Sub-rule (2) of rule 235 clearly indicates that this rule is only attracted to examine the validity and legality of any order or auction. As noted above none of the respondents have pointed out any invalidity or illegality in the auction proceedings dated 15-8-2006. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 mentioned that respondent No.4 had become indisposed, therefore, could not participate in the auction proceedings. This ground was neither expressed to any relevant authority on 15-8-2006 nor it was raised before the licensing authority or appellate authority. In any case, this excuse cannot be treated as invalidity or illegality on account of the petitioner or licensing Authority.
8. Article 150 of the Constitution, reads as under:-- "Full faith and credit shall be given throughout Pakistan to public acts and records, and judicial proceedings of every Province."
' The above expression has been reflected in a number of judgments rendered by Superior Courts of this country and also other jurisdictions. The credibility, sanctity and authenticity is attached with the official functions, but if official functions are not performed with responsibility and commitments are not fulfilled. I am afraid, the credibility, of official acts and transactions, would evaporate. To perform I official functions, important thing is to act in accordance with law and rules and once a transaction or act is performed in accordance with law and rules, it should end there, such transactions cannot be reopened, again and again, only on consideration of more money as it appears from the impugned order. Faith and credit, in public acts, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of Rs.5 lacs as happened in the present case. In our religion as well as law, emphasis is to honour the commitment and to follow whatever is agreed between the parties.
8. Thus, as a sequel to the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is, allowed. The impugned order dated 30-9-2006, passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. The position which prevailed prior to 30-9-2006 shall be restored and the parties will fulfil their liabilities and rights in accordance with auction proceedings concluded on 15-8-2006.