' Through this writ petition, Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Ashraf, the petitioners challenged the legality, correctness and validity of the edict dated 31.12.2012 contained in Memo. Nos. 540 and 541 issued by Deputy Director/ Secretary PHATA, DHA Khanewal, Subregion Multan, Respondent No, 5.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Respondent No, 5, the aforementioned put to auction residential and commercial plots of Housing Scheme Jehanian, District Khanewal. The auction was held on 11.4.2012 at Town Hall, Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA), Khanewal. The petitioners deposited Rs, 30,000/ each in a Schedule Bank in favor of Respondent No, 5 before taking part in the auction proceedings. Be that as it may, they were declared successful highest bidders in respect of commercial Plots Nos. 4 and 67 measuring 1 Marla each. On 18.4.2012, Respondent No, 5 let it be known that the petitioners were to deposit 1/3rd of the amount at which the hammer fell. On the very same date, in response to the call made by Respondent No, 5, the petitioners deposited two amounts of Rs, 72,600/ each vide CDR Nos. 5660375 and 5660376. Instead of issuing the allotment letter of the plots in question to the petitioners, Respondent No, 5 issued Memos Bearing Nos. 540 and 541 dated 31.12.2012, informing the petitioners that their earnest money of Rs, 60,000/ stood forfeited in favor of Housing and Town Planning Department, Respondent No, 2.
3. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of Respondent No, 5 was tainted with mala fides; that no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioners before taking the punitive action against them; that when the petitioners had already deposited 1/3rd amount of the plots, the details whereof have been set out herein above, there was no justification to go back to square one and to forfeit earnest money of Rs, 60,000/, which automatically meant that the petitioners were thrown out of the arena. It was further argued by him that the action of Respondent No, 5 is violative of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 10-A, 24 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. Mr. Muhammad Javed Saeed Pizada, Assistant Advocate General Punjab duly assisted by Masood Shaheen, Housing Management Officer of PHATA, Multan has vehemently opposed this petition on the grounds that when the petitioners were declared successful bidders in the auction held on 11.4.2012, they had not to wait for any further order or call from Respondent No,
5. According to him, the petitioners were required to deposit 1/3rd of the amount of the plots in question within seven days after the holding of the auction in favor of the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Law Officer, besides going through the record appended to the writ petition as well as the report and parawise comments furnished by the respondents.
6. It is an indisputable fact that Muhammad Ashraf, Petitioner No, 2 offered heights bid for Plot No, 4 measuring 1 Marla. On the other hand, Abdul Rehman, Petitioner No, 1 turned out to be highest bidder regarding Plot No, 67 measuring 1 Marla. Both the plots were commercial in nature and fell within the Area Scheme, Jehanian, District Khanewal. No doubt, the petitioners were required to deposit 1/3rd cost of the plots in question within seven days as per the terms and conditions published by Respondent No, 5, which are also said to have been read out to the participants prior to the conducting of the auction proceedings but the question is, when would the period of seven days start, and what would be the cutoff date for the petitioners to deposit 1/3rd cost of the plots to be transferred to them? Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Law Officer helped the Court to resolve this intricate question, which has a decisive bearing on the outcome of the controversy in issue for the simple reason that auction of the plots in question was held on 11.4.2012, while undeniably the petitioners deposited Rs, 72,600/ each in favor of Respondent No, 5 on 18.4.2012. If the 11th April, 2012, the date when the auction proceedings were conducted, is not to be counted towards the seven days and is excluded from the computation of the period of seven days within which the petitioners were to deposit 1/3rd of the price of the plots, then it can he held that the action of Respondent No, 5 to forfeit the earnest money of Rs, 30,000/ each of the petitioners would be uncalled for, unwarranted, illegal and without jurisdiction. On the contrary, if the time was to run from 11.4.2012, then the petitioners were to deposit 1/3rd of the price by 17.4.2012.
7. As stated above, the learned counsel representing the parties did not address themselves to the afore-stated crucial issue, rather they kept on making accusations against each other. It was insisted by them that the other party had breached the terms and conditions.
8. Although I have not been able to lay my hands on any law analogous to the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a close parallel may be found in Section 8 of Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956. In order to highlight the significance of both these provisions, it would be convenient and advantageous to reproduce sub/section (2) of Section 12 and Section 8 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 hereunder: "(2) In computng the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded."
"8. Commencement and termination of time. In any {Punjab Act}, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "from" and for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "to".
9. I am persuaded to follow the analogy and the underlying object of the afore-quoted provisions of law. I am of the view that the day when auction proceedings are held is not to be reckoned and counted towards the time within which a successful bidder is to deposit' 1/3rd of the price at which auction of a particular plot, item, article etc.' is done. The successful bidder has every right to take a second look, before committing himself irrevocably and for this, he must have! Sufficient time at his disposal to brood and rethink about his final act. In other words, he must have seven clear days after the date when auction proceedings are held in which he turns out to be the highest or successful bidder.
10. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that when the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs, 72,600/ each regarding Plot Nos. 4 and 67/commercial measuring 1 Marla each falling within Area Scheme, Jehanian on the 18th April, 2012, they did not violate the terms and conditions prescribed for the auction of those plots. Therefore, the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by Respondent No, 5 contained in his Memo Nos. 540 and 541 was issued without lawful authority and without jurisdiction, and as such is held to be illegal, unlawful and of no legal effect. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of the aforementioned plots, subject to their fulfilling other terms and conditions of the auction, especially relating to their depositing the balance price at which the hammer fell in their favor.
11. This petition is allowed in the above terms.