MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Respondents invited bids for the sale of plot No,18, Block-L, Gulberg-III Scheme, Lahore as per terms announced in newspaper through publication.
The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder in open auction held on 30-4-2001. The petitioner's offer of Rs,131,000/- per Marla was declared highest. The petitioner deposited Rs,7.5 Million being 1/3rd of the bid amount, however, through letter dated 7-1-2005 the respondents rejected the petitioner's bid. The petitioner, thus, asserts that he has been condemned unheard, he has deposited the amount of Rs,7.5 Million being the highest bidder and his bid was finally accepted and as such the act of respondents for rejection of his bid is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside being without lawful authority.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents, the respondent filed report and parawise comments. The respondents stated that no doubt the petitioner was declared successful bidder but under clause 2 of the terms of sale/auction the respondent No,1 was within his right to cancel or reject the bid. The petitioner was directed on 7-1-2005 that as his bid has been cancelled, therefore, the petitioner may withdraw his amount. It is further stated that competent authority is the Director General, Lahore Development Authority to accept or reject the bid, the competent authority after examining the proceedings and price offer rejected the petitioner's bid and as such no concluded agreement came into existence between the parties, the petition thus merits rejection.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner was declared the highest bidder. He has deposited 1/3rd amount in terms of auction, the. Respondents remained silent for four years and suddenly on 7-1-2005 rejected the petitioner's bid without any reason, the petitioner was thus, condemned unheard: He, further referred to the report of Auction Committee which shows that on 18-5-2001 the petitioner's bid was accepted and the Director General, LDA approved the bid. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on acceptance of the petitioner's bid he becomes the owner of the plot subject to payment of 2/3rd amount. The respondent after the approval of bid on 18-5-2001 remained silent for four years in spite of petitioner's repeated calls and visits. After the acceptance of the petitioner's bid the petitioner has developed legitimate expectation to the effect that respondent will transfer the plot in his name on receiving the balance 2/3rd amount. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the rejection of the petitioner's bid by respondents is without lawful authority. Lastly adds that once offer is accepted it could not be revoked or cancelled unilaterally. Learned counsel has relied on Dr. Shoukat Pervez v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and another (2011 PLC (C.S.) 26); Dr. Marvi Shah and 9 others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 182), Muhammad Arshad Quershi v. Chairman, Water and Power Development Authority Lahore and 3 others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 186), Rafaqat Ali v. Executive District Officer (Health) and others 2011 PLC (C.S.), 1615 and Mst. Saira Shah Nawaz v. Punjab University and others 2011 MLD 617.
4. Learned counsel for LDA submits that as per clause (2) of the terms of auction the acceptance of the bid of the highest bidder was subject to final approval by the Director General, LDA, Director'
General LDA being the competent authority was within his right to reject the highest bid without assigning any reason. He further submits that 1/3rd amount of the bid was not deposited in terms of the auction. Learned counsel submits that the auction was conducted on 30-4-2001 and the petitioner deposited Rs,7.5 Million on 3-5-2001, he even failed to deposit the 1/3rd amount on the day of bid and as such the petitioner could not claim any right in his favour.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was declared the highest bidder. The plot in dispute i.e, Plot No,18, Block-L, Gulberg-III Scheme. Lahore was auctioned on 30-4-2001. According to clause-2 of the terms of auction, the final approval of the bid is subject to the approval of the Director General.
LDA. The successful bidder was to deposit 1/3rd price of the plot/property at the spot and remaining price was payable within 60 days on receipt of final acceptance letter. The petitioner admittedly has not deposited 1/3rd price at the spot but it is also an admitted fact that respondents received Rs,7.2 Million and Rs,300,000/- on 3-5-2001 and 30-4-2001 respectively.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner's bid was accepted by the Director General, LDA. He referred the internal reports of respondent No, l's office, which the respondent No,1 has itself produced on record. The proceedings of bid dated 30-4-2001 show that the Auction Committee recommended as under:-- "This plot was placed in Auction after vacation of stay. Bid is reasonable. It may be accepted".
' The said recommendations were sent to Director General who passed the following order:-- "Discussed in meeting today attended by ADG, DEM. DF-2. DCD. As per agreement of the participants the recommendation of Auction Committee at ,' A' is accepted".
8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner's bid was finally approved by the Director General, LDA in terms of the bid, as such he becomes entitled for the transfer of the plot against payment of 2/3 balance amount. As the petitioner's bid was accepted, he, thus, developed a legitimate expectancy for the transfer of plot in his name.
9. The doctrine of legitimate expectancy is a recognized doctrine in the legal parlance but the rationale for implementing the said doctrine is that if the decision or the action taken by the authority is conveyed to its beneficiary. The Doctrine of legitimate expectancy was considered by the House of Lords in Council of Civil Services Unions and others v. Minister for the Civil Service (1948) All ER 953), ' Lord Diplock opined as under; "For a legitimate expectation to arise, the discretion of the administrative authority must effect such power either (a) by altering right or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private Law or (b) by depriving him same benefit advantage which either (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to so until some rational ground for withdrawing it has been committed to him and he has been given opportunity to comment thereon or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision maker that they will not be withdrawn without first giving him an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should be withdrawn."
10. In another case Attorney General of Hong Kong V Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) All ER 346 Lord Fraser opined as under:-- "When a Public Authority has promised to follow on certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its proviso so long as the implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty."
11. The Doctrine of Legitimate` expectation and its impact has been considered by the Supreme Court of India in National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunthan and others (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 66) and it was held:-- "The doctrine of legitimate expectation has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and, its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. It was in this context that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was evolved which has today become a source of substantive as well as procedural rights. But claims based on legitimate expectation have been held to require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims, based on promissory estoppel.
Unfairness in the purported exercise of power can amount to an abuse or excess of power. Thus the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has been developed, both in the context of reasonableness and in the context of natural justice. The State actions have to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, of which non-arbitrariness is a significant fact. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them- for public good. Through the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fair play in administrative action, it may, in a given situation, be enforced as a sustentative right.
' The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the Court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which after
(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given as opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn. Indian scenario in the filed of legitimate expectation is not different."
12. Admittedly the decision of the authority was not conveyed to the petitioner and as such the petitioner could not claim that respondent authority assured the petitioner that his bid has been accepted. Hence, the petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of the doctrine of legitimate expectancy.
13. There is another aspect of this case. If the alleged final approval dated'18-5-2001 was conveyed to the petitioner why he has not deposited the remaining 2/3rd amount in terms of bid, why the petitioner remained silent till the final rejection by respondents on 7-1-2005. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner never requested the respondents that he may be issued a challan for the remaining amount. The petitioner remained silent for four years and after the rejection of bid he came to the court claiming that his bid was wrongly rejected. The long silence of petitioner for four years is sufficient to prove that the alleged approval of petitioner's bid came into his knowledge.
14. The petitioner participated in the bid after knowing its terms and conditions and as such the said terms and conditions of the bid are binding on the petitioner. Further conduct of the petitioner shows that he never agitated his right before the respondent-authority.
15. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent, thus, is bound to prevail that the recommendation and approval as relied by the petitioner are an internal documents of the authority. The authority has never conveyed the alleged approval to the petitioner and as such no concluded agreement came into existence, the respondent-authority was within his right to reject the highest bid even without assigning any reason. The argument of the petitioner is not that condition No,2 of the bid is against the law as it provides a unilateral discretion to the authority for the acceptance or rejection of the bid but the claim of the petitioner is that terms and conditions were in his knowledge and he after knowing the terms and conditions participated in the bid and his bid was approved by the Director General, LDA as per the terms of the bid.
16. Simultaneously the conduct of the respondent is also not in accordance with law, they received a huge amount of Rs,7.5 Million which is lying with them and they are utilizing the said 'amount. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that they vide letter dated 7-1-2005 requested the petitioner to withdraw his amount and it is C the petitioner who failed to withdraw the same could not be accepted for the simple reason that from 2001 to 2005 when the respondent-authority has exercised its authority to disallow the petitioner's bid why they retained the petitioner's amount with them. Even after 7-1-2005 the authority has not shown his willingness to refund the petitioner's amount. It was very easy for the respondent- authority to refund the amount by issuing a cross pay order in the name of the petitioner and could send it through postal services.
17. In these circumstances, the respondent-authority is bound to pay the interest on the petitioner's amount which till today is lying with them. The period of four years from the date of auction and rejection of the bid and also till today is not a reasonable time. The respondent authority was to decide the fate of the bid within the period not more than ninety days and as such the respondent- authority is liable to pay the interest on the bank rate as announced by the State Bank of Pakistan from time to time on commercial finances from the period commencing after ninety days of the deposit of the petitioner's bid amount till its rejection.
18. In view of the above, the petition fails and is dismissed. However, the respondents are liable to refund the petitioner's amount along with interest as ordered above. There is no order as to costs.