' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 1-2-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petitions Nos.4061 and 4244 of 2004.
2. A public auction for the collection of fee on transfer of immovable property within the area of T.M.A., Karor Pacca, District Lodhran for the year 2004-2005 was to take place on 29-5-2004 and 3- 6-2004 but no one turned up on those dates. Therefore, a fresh advertisement was made for auction on 28-6-2004 in which the offers made by the contractors were not accepted. As a result of some negotiations, and notice the petitioner raised his offer to Rs,37,18,000. The same was accepted by the Tehsil Nazim as well as by the Tehsil Municipal Administration. However, on 28-7- 2004, the contract was cancelled in terms of Clause 20 of the Contract. The Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran passed an injunctive order against the respondent No,1 on the application of the petitioner.
The private respondents moved the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through Writ Petitions Nos.4061 and 4244 of 2004. The same are allowed by the impugned judgment, dated 1-2-2005 and the Tehsil Municipal Administration was directed to take over the charge and collect the income itself or to hold a fresh auction in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the bid of the petitioner was approved by the Tehsil Nazim as well as by a resolution of the Tehsil Municipal Administration, as a result of negotiation. Therefore, the same could not be rescinded or set aside by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record It would be useful to reproduce below paras. Nos.9 and 10 of the impugned judgment.
"(9) Notwithstanding the above factual position a bare reading of Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 as amended on 20-10-2003 would show that the Tehsil Nazim and for that matter T.M.A. Was not at all possessed of any lawful authority to award the contract by entering into negotiation with respondent No,6. Now Rule 4 of the said Rules places an expressed prohibition upon the Local Government that no contract shall be awarded to a contractor except in the manner prescribed in the said Rules. Chapter 2 of the said Rules prescribes auction procedure and Chapter 3 prescribes the manner of awarding the contract The earlier sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 authorized Nazim to report the matter for decision of contracting out an income through negotiation by appointing a Negotiation Committee or otherwise and the Rule 12 provided procedure for such negotiation. However, w.e.f, 20-10-2003 the said sub-rule (4) and the said Rule 12 were deleted. The result is that the contract can be awarded only in the manner prescribed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the said Rules, which ,do not at all provide award of contract by Nazim or T.M.A. By negotiation.
(10) The learned counsel for the respondent No,6 has tried to argue that since the bid made by respondent No,6 was higher than the reserved price the matter could be further negotiated by the Nazim. However, Rule 11(2) refers to the highest bid, which in this case had admittedly been withdrawn by the bidder and the withdrawal was accepted by the T.M.A. Subject to all legal and factual consequences as to forfeiture of the call deposit etc. Under the Rules as they exist and prescribe an expressed prohibition contained in Rule 4 thereof, the T.M.A. Could have either held a fresh auction or should have start collection of income itself. There is no warrant in the said Rules or the Ordinance under which these have been framed for the award of contract to respondent No,6.
The same is wholly without jurisdiction and without lawful authority."
5. It would be thus clear from the above that the contract awarded to the petitioner lacked the transparency and fairness. The High Court was justified in declaring the same as without lawful authority. The impugned judgment is just and fair and no exception can be taken. The rights for collection of the fee on the immovable property were leased out to the petitioner without faithful observance of codal formalities. The impugned judgment is plainly correct and the same does not call for interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
' The Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, is directed to review whole system of awarding the contracts by various Local Governments and to take steps, so that the chances of corruption, maladministration, lack of transparency and fairness, misuse of power and authority on the part of Local Governments are eliminated. He shall submit report compliance of this order through Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court, within a period of six weeks.