ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .----Through this Constitutional Petition the petitioner prayed as under:- "In view of above it is, therefore, accordingly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the Call Deposit amount submitted by the petitioner of rupees one million, in the interest of equity , fair play and justice."
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant petition are that the petitioner is government contractor and in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.04.2018, issued by the Chief Inspector of Mines Balochistan, Quetta petitioner participated in the auction for award of contract for right of collection of duty of safety/rescue/training on minerals for block-IX, District Mastung and was held successful bidder , in response of the same the petitioner deposited one million rupees as call deposit, but the respondent department deliberately omitted to issue the work order to the petitioner; that the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondents for award of contract or to return his call deposit, but in vain. Hence this petition.
3. Heard learned AAG, perused the record. It appears that the respondent No.3 invited bids through publication dated 1st April, 2018 from the registered contractor for contract for right of collection of duty of safely/rescue/training on minerals. The petitioner being qualified contractor submitted bid for the contract of right of collection of duty of safety/rescue/training on minerals for block-DC District Mastung and deposited the security amount 25% of the bid i.e. rupees one million through bank. The record further transpires that after being successful bidder the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 for issuance of work order but the respondent failed to fulfill the condition as mentioned in the publication, whereof the petitioner approached the respondents for refund of security deposit amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million). It appears from the para-wise comments of respondents Nos.1 and 3 that due to non-deposit of amount of security , advance and stamp paper , the call deposit amount was forfeited. The record depicts that the respondent No.3 issued letter No.CIM:735/(G)/9/2216/2018, dated 28th June, 2018 and informed the petitioner that the contract has been awarded to him with direction to comply the formalities i.e. (1). Security Deposit 25% of Total Bid. Rs.3775,000/-, (2). Advance Deposit 25% Total Bid Rs.37,75,000/-. (3) Stamp Duty 0.25% of Total Bid Rs.37,750/-.
4. Before dilating upon the facts of the case it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant clauses i.e. 5,9 and 10 of the Notification No. SOT O(MMD)/3-412010/478-97, dated 22nd March, 2010 as under: "5. The respective Auction Committee shall have the power to accept negotiate for improvement of bid with the first or second highest bidder in case it is not adequate or reject the highest or any other bid received in an auction without assigning any reason: Provided that the acceptance of any bid at an auction considered by the Auction committee shall be subject to confirmation by the Government; Provided further that upon confirmation by the Government, the acceptance of bid shall further be subject to forfeiture of call-deposit in case ; or
(i) failure to fulfill contractual obligations as agreed with the first or second highest bidder; or
(ii) to resume rights for collection of royalty .
9. The Director General Mines and Minerals/Licensing Authority shall within seven days of the date of auction, recommend highest bid to the Administr ative Department, which shall submit the case to the Government for approval.
10. The Government may within fifteen days of the submission of the bid, either confirm the same or reject it with orders for re-auction.
5. Admittedly the auction proceedings were completed on 17th April, 2018. Without entering into the factual controversies, it appears that the respond ent did not follow their own prescribed procedure. No decision in respect of accepting or rejecting the bid was taken within the stipulated period as prescribed in clauses 9 and 10 of the notification despite pursuing matter by the petitioner . In the referred clauses 9 and 10 it has clearly been mentioned that the authority shall within seven days of auction, recommend the highest bid to the department, whereas the clause-10 states that the government may within fifteen days of submission of bid either confirm or reject the same.
The record transpires that the respondent No.3 issued letter of acceptance to petitioner on 28th June 2018 after 70 days of the auction. Under such circumstances the forfeiture of the call deposit by the respondent without due course of law would be infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner as protected under Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It would be advantageous to reproduce Article 24 of the Constitution as under:
24. Protection of property rights. (1) No person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property save in accordance with law . ;2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which compensation is to be determined and given.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall affect the validity of--
(a) any law permitting the compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property for preventing danger to life, property or public health; or
(b) any law permitting the taking over of any property which has been acquired by, or come into the possession of, any person by any unfair means, or in any manner , contrary to law; or
(c) any law relating to the acquisition, administration or disposal of any property which is or is deemed to be enemy property or evacuee property under any law (not being property which has ceased to be evacuee property under any law); or
(d) any law providing for the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period, either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property , or for the benefit of its owner; or
(e) any law providing for the acquisition of any class of property for the purpose of--
(i) providing education and medical aid to all or any specified class of citizens; or
(ii) providing housing and public facilities and services such as roads, water supply , sewerage, gas and electric power to all or any specified class of citizens; or
(iii) providing maintenance to those who, on account of unemployment, sickness, infirmity or old age, are unable to maintain themselves; or
(f) any existing law or any law made in pursuance of Article 253.
(4) The adequacy or otherwise of any compensation provided for by any such law as is referred to in this Article, or determined in pursuance thereof, shall not be called in question in any court.
In view of above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refun d the call deposit amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees one million) to the petitioner with no order as to cost.