MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant Constitutional petitioner seeks order dated 15-2-2005 passed by Respondent No. 1 to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed being without any cause of action. With an added prayer that respondents may be directed to handover collection rights of T.I.P. Taxes to the petitioner on his offered bid.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that T.M.A., Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore publicized auction of collection rights of TIP Tax for the current financial year, notifying the date as 2.1-5-2004. In the auction one GuI Marjan was declared the highest bidder with an amount of Rs. 35 million but his offer was not accepted by T.M.A. And decided to re-auction the collection rights and notified dated of re-auction as 29-6-.
2004. Against notice of re-auction, Gul Marjan filed a Constitutional petition before this Court (W.P.
No. 10631/2004) which was disposed of on 29-6-2004 with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the highest bid in the second auction. In re-auction, hammer fell on a bid of Rs. 57.00 Crore, which was almost 50% over and above to the bid of Gul Marjan hence the matter was decided against him. Offer of the highest bidder in re-auction was approved by the Town Council in general meeting dated 9th July, 2004 and work order was issued accordingly.
3. Petitioner who had not participated in any of the two above-referred auctions, filed an appeal against the order of approval of highest bid in re-auction of Mr. Waheed Ullah Butt son of Rahmat Ullah Butt before Respondent No. 1 with a offer that he is ready to accept the lease of collection rights of TIP Tax at Rs. 7.00 Crore. Respondent No. 1 besides the reasons that T.M.A. Had already leased out the collection rights after approval of the council and the required agreement having been already executed in favour of the successive bidder, held that petitioner had no locus standi/cause of action to file an appeal and non-suited him vide order dated 15-2-2005. Petitioner has now filed instant Constitutional petition with the relief needed above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice of re-auction did not specify the reserved price of the auction, in violation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 thus the entire structure of auction proceedings, based thereon was void and has to be pulled down. It was further submitted that re-auction of collection rights of TIP Tax was not transparent as is evident from offer by the petitioner of Rs. 7.00 Crore which is over and above, the offer accepted by T.M.A. By almost Rs. 1.25 Crore. It was further emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent No. 1 erroneously dismissed his appeal being without any cause of action, as according to him, every individual haci a right to point out illegality/irregularity committed by the State functionaries. Clear violation of rules applicable, was made basis in support of the relief claimed It was further submitted that petitioner was deprived of equal opportunity to compete for gaining the collection rights, in violation of rules applicable.
5. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Undisputedly, petitioner neither was a participant of first auction held on 31-5-2004 nor he took part in re-auction held T.M.A, Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore on 29- 6-2004. Hence the petitioner had no cause of action to approach respondent No. 1 Likewise. He was not an aggrieved person to maintain the Constitutional petition against the order of acceptance of highest bid. Highest bid which was almost 50% over and above the earlier bid of GuI Marajan was approved by the Town committee after fulfilling all the formalities of law applicable and this auction could not be annulled when the financial year has already run out by half of its life and that too, on a mere verbal offer of Rs. 7.00 Crore because he did not append with his appeal before Respondent No 1 any pay order etc in order to show his bona fide regarding his offer Be that as it may a prespective/petitional bidder. Who had not joined the auction proceedings could not be treated as an aggrieved person to maintain a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. If the persons like the petitioner are allowed to challenge the approval of highest bids coming out of open auction after due publication, sanctity attached to the official acts 'will loss its worth in the eyes of public-at-large and, they will prefer not to participate in such proceedings in future .Controversy regarding the persons, who can maintain a Constitutional petition under Article 199, is settled by this time and it has been mandated by the Honourable Supreme Court that mere possibility of bidding out the auction, without actual participation confers no locus standi to file such. Petitions Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the cases of Nisar Ahmad and others v. Additional Secretary, Food and Agricultural, Government of Pakistan (1979 SCM R 389), Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Dr. Abdus Samad and others (1987 SCM R 1577) and Messrs lttehad Cargo Service and others v. Messrs Syed Tasneem Hussain Naqvi and others (PLD 2001 SC 116):
6. No doubt reserved price was not mentioned in the notice of re-auction but it was not a defect of such nature that on the basis of it entire activity of re-auctioning the collection rights of TIP Tax be annulled. This lapse is mere accidental/procedural and cannot be given any credence especially when the highest bid was 50% over and above of the last year's income. Above all the auction proceedings, subsequently conducted were absolutely transparent and the petitioner could not point out any malice, unfairness or favouritism in those proceedings as those were also scanned by the general house of T.M.A. While according sanction in the meeting held on 9-7-2004. Besides it, after the approval of the Town Council, all the necessary documents including agreement between parties were executed and the bidder has entered into his job since July, 2004 and at this juncture pulling of carpet from his feet. Cannot. Be justified on the basis of any Jaw or cannot be justified on the basis of any law or cannon known for administration for justice.
7. For the reasons noted above, petitioner had no cause of action to file an appeal before Respondent No. 1 and at the same time he being not aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this petition is not maintainable besides being devoid of any force and is dismissed in limine. .