' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this writ petition, the following prayer has been made:- "In these above-mentioned circumstances it is respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be graced with acceptance and issuance of cancellation letter by respondent No,2 dated 13-4-2012 (Annex-G) may kindly be declared illegal, without authority, without jurisdiction arbitrary, based on mala fides, unjust, unfair, against natural justice may kindly be set aside/quashed.
' It is further respectfully prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to receive the remaining amount and execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent-Bank previously offered auction of various properties owned by the Bank in October, 2011 through publication in the newspaper and its agent namely Green Wood Estate Consultants invited the interested parties to submit their sealed tenders/bids along with 1% of the offered bid amount in shape of pay order/demand draft in favour of the Bank of Punjab; that the petitioner along with others on 28-10-2011 participated in the bid process and submitted sealed, tenders/bids; that the petitioner submitted his, sealed tender/bid of rupees thirty lacs (three million) for the property reflected at Serial No,1 in the, publication, which is situated as Multan road Muzaffargarh measuring 1705 square feet; that on opening of tenders, the tender submitted by the petitioner was found highest but after some days he was informed that the management has cancelled all the tenders; that again the respondent-Bank published in the newspapers 'fang' and 'Dawn' on 29-2-2012 invited bids for the sale of its various properties in open auction through respondent No,2; that the interested parties were asked to submit pay order/CDR of Rs,500,000 (five lacs) till 12-3-2012; that again the petitioner the conditions mentioned in the publication submitted pay order of Rs,500,000 (five lacs) in favour of Bank for the properties mentioned at Serial No,5 situated at Multan road Muzaffargarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that, the reserve price fixed in the publication for the said property was Rs,26,00,000 (2.60 million) and the petitioner as well as others took part in the bidding process on 12-3-2012 and petitioner was declared highest bidder by offering Rs,31,00,000 (thirty one lacs), therefore pay order of petitioner was retained and rest of the pay orders were returned to the unsuccessful bidder's; that the petitioner was formally informed about the acceptance of bid through letter No, BOP/GSD / 2012/272/03/3510 dated 15-3-2012 and schedule for rest of the payment was also mentioned in this letter of acceptance; that even prior to the formal acceptance letter petitioner has sent through fax the copy of pay order of Rs,9,30,000; that when on 26-3-2012 petitioner tried to submit the original pay order of said amount, which was refused oh the pretext that one Faiz Ahmad Khan has filed a suit in the Civil Court of Muzaffargarh, therefore the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition; that during the pendency of this writ petition the respondent-Bank again advertised for auction of said property, then the petitioner moved C.M. No,4927 of 2012, which was heard on 6-7-2012 as the auction was scheduled for 12-7-2012. The order dated 6-7-2012 is as follows:-- "This is an application under section 151, C.P.C. For staying the auction scheduled to be held on 12- 7-2012.
(2) Notice. Meanwhile the auction may take place but it shall be held subject to decision of this writ petition."
' Learned counsel further states that the contract was completed and there was no occasion and power with the respondent-Bank to revoke the same, as the proposal became promise when the acceptance letter dated 15-3-2012 was issued in favour of the petitioner and after that the respondents have no authority to refuse the transfer of property in favour of petitioner. He has relied upon "PLD 2001 Supreme Court 116 (Messrs Ittehad Cargo Service and 2 others v. Messrs Stied Tasneem Hussain Naavi and others), 2007 YLR 2887 (Faisal Razzaq v. Tehsil Municipal Administration, Khairpur Tamewali and 5 others), 1999 MLD 2418 (Messrs Hotel Summer Retreat, Nathiagali through Managing Partner v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, C&W Department Peshawar and 5 others), 2006 SCMR 721 (Messrs M.A. Khan and Co. Through Sole Proprietor Muhammad Ali Khan v. Messrs Pakistan Railway Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Through Principal Officer/Secretary, Karachi), 2009 CLD 1336 (Fateh Muhammad Agha and another v. City District Government, Karachi through District Coordination Officer and 5 others), PLD 1972 Supreme Court 279 (The Muree Brevery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others), PLD 1992 Karachi 283 (Messrs Pacific Multinational Pvt. Ltd. v. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Police Headquarters and 2 others), PLD 1993 Lahore 141 (Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice-Chancellor v. Dr. Muhammad Khan Malik), PLD 1975 Supreme Court 244 (Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. Tokht Bhai and 10 others), PLD 2000 Lahore 489 (Muhammad Zubair Akram v. Aitchison College, Lahore), PLD 2002 Supreme Court 452 (Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi v. Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others), 1998 SCMR 2268 (Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others), 1998 CLC 1178, (Messrs Wak Orient Power and Light Limited Gulberg III, Lahore v. Govt. Of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power through its Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others) and PLD 1975 Lahore 575 (Umar alias Umar Hayat and another v. The State)." Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this writ petition be accepted and refusal by the respondent-bank be declared against the law and he be declared entitled to take property on the basis of amount offered by the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank argues that actually the process of auction whereby the petitioner stood successful bidder was with the connivance of evaluator of property and whole the process is based upon fraud and that a huge public exchequer is involved in this matter. Further states that when during the pendency of this writ petition the suit property has been auctioned and a successful bidder has offered an amount of rupees 15.200 million which is five time more than the offer of petitioner. While relying upon "2003 YLR 1597 (Muhammad Sufdar Gogar v. Province of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others), 2005 YLR 1443 (Babu Javed Ahmad, Tehsil Nazim and 2 others v. Abdul Hafeez) and 2012 YLR 174 (Mehmood Medical Store through Proprietors v. Services Hospital, Lahore through Medical Superintendent and 3 others)" learned counsel prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, also gone through the record appended with this petition by the petitioner as well as the respondents-Bank with the comments.
5. It is not denied that one Adeel Mukhtar has been declared successful bidder in the last auction, who has offered an amount of rupees 15.200 million; whereas the highest offer of petitioner was rupees 3.10 million. It is also not denied that in the terms and conditions published in the newspaper it is mentioned that any or all bids can be rejected by the Bank without assigning any reason. When during the pendency of this writ petition the process of re-auction has taken place whereby an amount of rupees 15.200 million has been offered for the property for which the petitioner has offered rupees 3.10 million only, therefore this. Court has to protect the interest of taxpayers as well as public exchequer notwithstanding the follies or illogical and some times even casual attitude of the custodians of public exchequer. In this context light can be taken from the judgments reported as "1993 SCMR 508 (Province of Punjab and 3 others v. Dr. Muhammad Daud Khan Tariq) and 1996 SCMR 1433 (Javed Iqbal Abbasi and Co. v. Province of Punjab)". In this case it transpires that the custodians of properties have not discharged their duties with regard to fixation of reserve price as well as assignment report, as according to the defence of Bank that the evaluation report was prepared with the connivance of writ petitioner, therefore this Court has to see the national interest and that the national interest must take priority over private interest and individual rights. Reliance is placed upon "PLD 1989 Supreme Court 166 (Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Saifullah Khan and others)." It is also the duty of custodians of properties at the time of auction that they must be ensured that the auction proceedings are transparent and the price procured is fairly closer to market value. When these are the circumstances where it is visible that the price has been offered more than five time for the same property and for exercising discretionary powers conferred upon this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore this Court is also bound to see that the person who came to the court for discretionary relief, whether this relief is equitable or not. Furthermore, when any violation of contractual obligation is made, the petitioner has certainly alternate remedies available to him. In case of availability of alternate remedy ordinarily this Court refrains itself to exercise constitutional jurisdiction. In the matter in issue if the petitioner presumes that he has no fault on his behalf and he has deposited the amount for the purchase of property and same has been used by the respondent-Bank for some period, he has a right to seek his efficacious remedy before the proper forum. In these circumstances, keeping in view the principles of equity and interest of the public exchequer I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
6. So far as the acceptance of offer by the Bank is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner ably proved that it became a contract but this Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction has to see that whether in every case this Court has to order for the performance of contract. It is not a case where any third person has just offered more amount than the amount offered by the petitioner but in this case full fledge process of re-auction of suit property has been carried out and there is a final offer of rupees 15.200 million for the suit property whereas the petitioner has offered rupees 3.100 million.
7. In the light of what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Before parting with this order I expect that the Bank will take action against the evaluator as well as its officials who contributed in the auction of disputed property for such a low rate in favour of petitioner. The Bank will forthwith return the amount received from the petitioner.