Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner being approved contractor of respondents participated in the auction for contract qua collection of fee/tax on the transfer of immovable property with effect from 1.7.2008 to 30.6.2009 as per terms and conditions of auction. Petitioner offered Rs, 91,00,000/- (rupees ninety one lac only) and declared successful bidder in the auction held on 9.9.2008. Thereafter he was called upon to deposit partial amount of a sum of Rs, 16,02,000/- (rupees sixteen lac two thousand only), which included 2% as security, 10% advance of total bid money, advance installment for the month of September, 2008 and -salary of Clerk of the said month, which was accordingly paid by him on 27.9.2008. It is pointed out that vide communication dated 13.9.2008 in response whereof above payment was made period of lease was curtailed from one year to 10 months i,e, from 1.9.2008 to 30.6.2009 on account of auction of the lease on 9.9.2008. It is clearly mentioned in the communication that amount of collection from 1st September, 2008 till the date of possession of the lease all revenue collected in the meanwhile shall be adjusted/reduced from the petitioner's liability. Being conscious of the aforesaid important features of this document as aforesaid the petitioner deposited the above amount of Rs, 16,18,544/- (rupees sixteen lac eighteen thousand five hundred and forty four only). In the meanwhile, the matter was place before the Council for its approval which was accordingly accorded on 23.9.2008. At this juncture the petitioner averring that the confirmation of bid was not communicated to him and that he was being demanded payment of installments with effect from 1.9.2008 although charge of the contract had not yet been handed over to him whereas he had discharged all obligations at his end filed this constitutional petition and in the above backdrop praying as below: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that order for demanding the installments of lease for the month of September 2008 and till handing over the charge/possession of lease my kindly be declared illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The respondent may kindly be directed to act upon as per rules and law and to hand over the charge of lease to the petitioner immediately. And period of lease may kindly be treated from the date of delivery of possession. The respondents may kindly be restrained from canceling the lease of the petitioner. And any other relief which deem fit may also be granted to the petitioner in the larger interest of justice."
During proceedings understanding developed inter se the parties and consequently petitioner and respondents executed agreement on 14.2.2009 and petitioner provided surties to the satisfaction of respondents as a result whereof the proper possession of lease was delivered to the petitioner on that very day i,e, 14.2.2009. Grievance of the petitioner to the extent of execution of agreement and delivery of lease stands redressed pendente lite this petition. He has also paid advance installments for the month of September, 2008 as indicated above before filing of this petition.
Controversy inter se the parties now boils down as to time of commencement of the period of lease i,e, whether it will run from the date of auction or the date of delivery of possession of lease.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that time of lease should reckon from the date of delivery of possession and not from the date of auction of lease for collection of tax. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relief upon two unreported decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No, 11802/1995 and Writ Petition No, 15636/1995.
4. On the other side, while referring to Para 18 of the terms and conditions of the lease and of lease agreement dated 14.2.2009 it is vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that as a dispute has arisen between the contractor and the respondents, it has to be resolved through arbitration by the District Co-ordination Officer, which is the appropriate forum and direct petition before this Court without exhausting the alternate remedy is not maintainable. In addition learned counsel relies upon Rule 24 of the Punjab Local Government (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules 2003 to further strengthen his stance. He has also referred to Section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 to reinforce his position that any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Local Government or its functionaries has a right of appeal before the authority, which is an adequate remedy.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record with their able assistance.
6. Petitioner is in possession of lease and collection of tax on transfer of property is being made by him. He is signatory of the terms and conditions of the auction as also of lease agreement, embodying Paras 18 binding both sides to adopt the procedure of arbitration in the event of any dispute inter se them, therefore, for resolution or the controversy as , to commencement of the time of lease petitioner is required to approach the District Co-ordination Officer for arbitration. Punjab Local Government (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules 2003 of the auction of collection Rules, 2003 also insists upon the above mode whereunder an arbitrator has to decide the dispute under the Arbitration Act, 1940 within one month. Section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 also provides right of appeal to any person aggrieved by any order of the Local Government or its functionaries. The unreported cases referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable as in both these cases arbitration clause in the agreement was not pressed whereas in the present case petitioner is signatory to the terms and conditions of auction and lease agreement containing arbitration clause (clause-18). Needless to point out that the agreement was executed during pendency of this constitutional petition. Therefore, in view of availability of adequate remedy to the petitioner in the above forms, this constitutional petition is not maintainable and is disposed of as such. However, the petitioner, if so advised, will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance.