' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners have challenged the auction .Held on 13-6-2005 and the letter, dated 22-9-2005 to be mala fide, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and direction has been sought to be issued to respondent No,3 to finalize the case of construction of public park pending since 13-8-2004.
2. The precise facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that Railway land measuring 24-K was lying vacant at Abdul Hakeem, Railway Station Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal. In the year 2005, the said land was leased out to respondent No,4 for cultivation purposes through an open public auction held on 13-6-2005 at the Rest House of Shor Kot Railway Station. The respondent No,3 by its letter, dated 22-9-2005 confirmed the auction in favour of the respondent No,4 at the rate of Rs,10,100 per acre.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that land measuring 24 K, at Abdul Hakeem, Railway Station had been auctioned in favour of respondent No,4 in an illegal manner for the reasons that under paragraph No,1152 of Pakistan Railways. Commercial Manual, 1935 the abovesaid land could not be auctioned for commercial purposes; that disputed land being surrounded by Urban Abadi is not suitable for commercial purposes; that two schools are also situated near the said Abadi and if the disputed land is used for commercial purpose it will cause hazards for the inhabitants; that the disputed land had already been proposed for the construction of Public Park on the application of the petitioners and other citizens by the Tehsil Municipal Officer Town Committee and letter No,TMO/KBA/2166-4, dated 13-8-2004 in this respect was also addressed to respondent No,3 with the request that auction of disputed property being held on 16- 8-2004 be postponed till the finalization of the deal with T.M.A. Kabirwala; that the matter was taken up by the Railway Authorities but was not still finalized and the auction was held on 13-6-2005 which was confirmed in favour of respondent No,4 on 22-9-2005 at the rate of Rs,10,100 per acre by the Railway Authorities in an illegal and unlawful manner with mala fide intention and the same may be cancelled.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 contends that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition; that the property had been auctioned on 13-6-2005 and it was confirmed in favour of respondent No,2 on 22-9-2005, but the petitioners filed the writ petition on 18-11-2006 after about 1-1/2 years which shows mala fide of the petitioner, who just to defeat the rights of the respondents have filed this writ petition at a belated stage which is liable to be dismissed on the point of laches; that mala fide of the petitioners can very well be judged from the contents of the writ petition as in grounds "B" and "C" of the petition it is admitted that petitioner No,1 is Mohtamim of Markazi Jamia Masjid Ahl-e-Hadees and he himself is Imam of the said Jamia Masjid situates adjacent to the land in dispute where Eid and Jumma congregations are also held; that the disputed property is not, only being used by the petitioners for the abovesaid purposes and also for their own gain which is not permissible under the law and for the fulfilment of their obligations/interest they have filed this frivolous petition in this Court, which shows that have not come to the Court with clean hands and as such they are not entitled to any relief from this Court; that neither T.M.A. Was impleaded party in this case nor T.M.A. Wanted construction of any Public Park over the disputed land. The learned counsel has also produced a letter, dated 27-9-2006 in this respect issued by the T.M.A. Kabirwala in which it is clearly mentioned that the disputed land is not required for the purpose of construction of park and the demand made in this behalf was withdrawn. Lastly the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 has contended that under.
Paragraph No,1152 there is no embargo for using the said land for commercial purposes because word "may" has been used which shows that it is the entire discretion of the department to utilize its land for any purposes according to the policies. In this behalf he has referred to policy letter, dated 31st July, 2006.
5. Likewise, the learned counsel for respondent No,4 contends that just to defeat the rights of respondent No,4 this petition has been filed on account of mala fide on the part of the petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents attached with this petition.
7. Paragraph No,1152 of Railway Commercial Manual, 19'35 for ready reference is reproduced as under:-- "1152. Railway land may be licensed, when available, for purpose connected with the working of the railway, such as:--
(a) erection of installations for receiving oil or petrol in bulk;
(b) stacking of goods proper to dispatch by rail;
(c) stacking of goods after arrival by rail in special cases, with the approval of the Headquarters Office;
(d) erection of shops for station vendors;
(e) erection of stalls on passenger platforms or waiting halls;
(f) military platforms or stacking yard;
(g) laying of water or oil pipe lines."
' A perusal of the above paragraph shows that word "may" has been used which shows that the land in dispute can be utilized for any purpose according to the policies framed by the department from time to time and the auction in case in hand was according to the policy referred to above by the Railway Department.
8. So far as the requirement of the land for construction of a Public Park is concerned, the plea of the petitioners has been negated by the letter, dated 27-9-2006 issued by the Tehsil Municipal Officer, Tehsil Municipal Administration, Kabirwala in which it has been clearly mentioned that the demand for construction of a public park at the disputed place has been withdrawn and it is not required for this purpose as already four parks have been constructed in the Town and the Finance Municipal Administration is not in a position to bear the more expenses.
9. There is another aspect of the case that the auction as mentioned in the preceding paras. Was held on 13-6-2005 and it was confirmed on 22-9-2005, but the petitioners have filed this petition on 18-11-2006 after about 1-1/2 years and the same is hit by the principle of laches. Even otherwise, it is admitted in the writ petition that petitioner No,1 is Mohtamim of Markazi Jamia Masjid Ahl-e- Hadees and he himself is Imam of the said Jamia Masjid situates adjacent to the land in dispute where Eid and Jumma congregations are also held. It shows the mala fide on the part of the petitioners that they have filed this writ petition just to defeat the interest of the respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioners are not owners of the property and they have no locus standi to file this petition.
10. So far as the point raised by the petitioners that if disputed property is used for agricultural purpose it will create hazard for the public is concerned, the same is also not tenable as nobody else from the Town has come forward to agitate the same. Even otherwise, this is not acceptable that the land if is used for the said purpose it will not create better environment than the place lying vacant to allow the people to throw garbage there.
11. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no force is dismissed. No order as to costs.