' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed as under:- "In view of above submissions, it is prayed that respondents be directed to execute the formal agreement in light of clause-23 of Bid documents as the matter has already been finalized. It is also prayed that respondents be restrained from resuming possession of subject property from petitioner till decision of W. P. "
2. Briefly stated the facts of case are that petitioner in response to advertisement issued by the Ministry of Railway for commercial development of Railway property bearing Bungalow No.1.1 measuring 8040 Square feet at old Bahawalpur Road, Multan on joint venture basis. The petitioner submitted the bid document and he was sole bidder. The petitioner asserts that the property offered for joint venture was declared surplus by Pakistan Railway. The possession of the same was handed over to the petitioner on fulfilment of certain conditions along with approved site plan.
Under Clause-20 of the. Bid document the lease will be agreed for 99 years and regular agreement has to be executed after due diligence. The respondent-Pakistan Railway has failed to execute the agreement in terms of bid document and as such they be directed tor perform their part of agreement.
3. Notices were issued to respondents. They filed report and parawise comments and stated that no doubt the proposals were called from the interested parties for a commercial development of Railway's property at Old Bahawalpur Road, Multan on joint venture basis for 99 years lease on 18- 12-2009. It was denied that possession of property was ever delivered to the petitioner. It was further stated that confirmation of bid was subject to approval by the Executive Committee of Railway Board and after that a letter of interest (L.O.I.) was to be issued. In the present case the proposal of petitioner was rejected on initial stage when the documents submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized. The petitioner submitted fake document and as such the proposal was rightly rejected. It was further asserted that pay order amounting to Rs,1 Million was issued to petitioner on his request being the bid money deposited by him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the bids invited by respondents the petitioner was declared the sole and successful bidder and as per Clause-23 of the bid document, the agreement was to be executed in favour of successful bidder. Admittedly the petitioner was declared successful bidder, he has deposited the bid money and a it is the respondent/Pakistan Railway who failed to fulfil its commitment. Further submits that document declared to be false and fake was never provided by the petitioner. It is the respondents who managed the said false document. He further submits that he got refunded the bid money on the understanding that same will be deposited when the final agreement will be executed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments of. Learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that invitation of bid was for development of commercial property and its finalization was subject to approval by the competent authority. The petitioner no doubt deposited Rs,1 Million with respondents but on 8-4-2010 he submitted an application for refund of above said amount. The petitioner vide receipt dated 8-4-2010 received the cheque being the refund of security deposit and as such the petitioner's relationship with respondent came into end. Reason for rejection of petitioner's bid was that when the respondents sent financial certificate provided by the petitioner from Askari Commercial Bank for its verification the said bank vide letter dated 10-2- 2010 specifically confirmed that they have not issued the letter and it is the forged and fake document.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. The invitation of bids and that the petitioner was the sole bidder, he deposited Rs,l Million being the bid money and also submitted financial report are not denied. It is an admitted fact that as per bid document Clause-23 read as under:--- "Agreement shall be executed upon due diligence."
This clause of bid is also not denied by the petitioner. The petitioner while submitting the bid document has annexed a certificate from Askari Commercial Bank Islamic Bank Service, Multan dated 19-1-2010 for establishing his financial stability which is the necessary document for participating in bid as it was a joint venture and the petitioner was to invest the money for raising commercial building in the respondents land. The respondents when submitted the said certificate for verification to the issuing Bank, the issuing Bank vide letter dated 10.2.2010 reported as under:- "Please refer to your letter No DM/1C-2JV PROJECT/2010 dated 10-2-2010 we would like to inform you that we have not issued certificate of 1500.00 (M) in favour of Messrs Bakht Fraz Construction Company bearing Account o.91203600039301."
8. The petitioner when become aware about the said verification report, he submitted an application on 7-4-2010 to Director Marketing Ministry of Railway Islamabad claiming that their bid money Rs,1 Million be refunded to them. The reason for refund was shown that they came to know through reliable source that their bid has not been accepted. The respondent vide letter dated 8- 4-2010 released the said amount through cheque which was received by the petitioner on 8-4- 2010.
9. The petitioner has asserted not a single word in his petition that his bid has been rejected in spite of the fact that he was aware about its rejection as is evident from his own letter dated 7-4-2010.
He further got refunded his bid amount and as such it is the petitioner who himself withdrew from the bid and as such the petition merits rejection. Further the petitioner's version that he is in possession of the property has been vehemently denied by the respondents. Further the petitioner himself has failed to produce any document showing that he is in possession of the property, subject-matter of bid and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
10. In view of the above, this petition fails and is dismissed.