' SYED SHAHEEN MASUD RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the re-auctioning of the fee for the transfer of immovable property, which was to take place on 29-6-2009 on the ground that in the earlier auction for the said purpose the petitioner was declared successful bidder and that his bid for the collection for the fee on the transfer of property within the limits of Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan was approved in his favour and that his bid was pending with the Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan when just after two days i,e, 18-6-2009 respondent No,4, Abdul Ghaffar made an application to respondent No,2 that he will be paying Rs,3,85,00,000 as a bid for the collection of the said fee and along with that offer he submitted the call deposit amounting to Rs,38,50,000. The bid of the petitioner was still with the administration of the Tehsil Council and it was yet to be submitted for final approval to the house. That just after the respondent No,4 made an offer the petitioner opted to withdraw his security and thus made an application to the respondents on 20-6-2009 that the security be refunded to him and, therefore, his security was refunded and the payment was made to him where after the collection right of the fee on the immovable property was advertised to be re-auctioned on 29:6-2009, which auction was challenged through the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the petitioner stands aggrieved from the subsequent re-auction for the collection of the fee on the transfer of immovable property, as he had voluntarily withdrawn the security during the proceedings when his bid was yet to be placed before the house and had he any objection with reference to the subsequent auction and he after all wanted the acceptance of his earlier bid, he should not have withdrawn his security and should have contested the matter but he opted voluntarily to withdraw from the auction proceedings, which were yet to be finalized and got the refund of his security.
Therefore, he stands de-barred from challenging the subsequent auction as his earlier withdrawal of the security operates as an estoppel against the petitioner. Furthermore, he could have easily taken part in the subsequent auction proceedings, and nothing prevented him to participate in the subsequent auction. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.