ALl BAQAR NAJAF , J.-- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to approve the bids in the auction held on 02.05.2019, mentioned at Sr. Nos. 6 & 7 in the advertisement dated 21.04.2019 in Daily . Khabrain, being a successful highest bidder .
2. Briefly , the facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner is a registered contractor under Punjab Local Governments (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules, 2016, on the basis of which he participated in the public auction held on 02.05.2019, After submitting Zar-e-Zamanat, for the parking fee of auto motorcycle rickshaw stand (for all, city) and cycle stand, tonga stand, etc. (at Vegetable Market), Gojra. The petitioner offered Rs. 25,00,000/-against the reserve price of Rs. 23,00,000/- for the former and Rs. 15,00,000/- against reserve price of Rs. 13,50,000/- for the later and submitted zar-e-zamant of Rs. 2,30,000/- and 1,35,000/- respectively , in the bank. The auction was required to be confirmed within ten days on the-basis of highest bid but on 04.05.2019 i.e. just two days after the said auction, the charge of the Municip al Committee was given to the Administrator/A.C., Gojra under the new setup of Local Governments. The Administrator fixed the date for re- auction on 30.05.2019 without cancellation of the earlier process through an advertisement published on 24.05.2019 in Daily Nawa-e-W aqt, on the ground that a higher offer of Rs. 28,00,000/- for auto motorcycle rickshaw stand and Rs. 30,00,000/- for cycle stand at Vegetable Market has been received, therefore, fixed die same reserve price, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Punjab Local Governments ,(Auction of Collection Rights)
Rules, 2016, the eligible candidates are only those who have been duly registered and that three attempts for awarding contract are permissible, if the of fer is not made over and above the reserved price.
4. Conversely , in the report and parawise comments submitted by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 it was stated that under Clause Rule 12(4) of Rules ibid, the highest bid must be reasonably justifiable having no scope of further enhancement and since the offer could be further enhanced, the offer by the petitioner can be increased. The Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Gojra present in Court submits that one Sana Ullah son of Nawab Din had initiated the process of his registration who made higher offer than that of the petitioner . therefore, in order to protect the interest of the council the bid of the petitioner was rejected and the stands were put to re-auction.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Admittedly , the petitioner is a registered eligible candidate to participate in the auction by making an offer of bid.
It is also not denied by the respondents that Sana Ullah was not a registered candidate, therefore, he could not participate in the auction. The case of Chief Corporation Officer is that since this person did not participate but had he participated being registered eligible candidate, he would have made an offer of Rs. 28,00,000/-. I am afraid, this supposition is hypothecal dragging the petitioner into the world of ifs and buts. It is a common practice that the competitors would' try and frustrate the auction proceedings and, that is the reason why prerequisites for their such entry are provided. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner offered less than the reserve price. It is also not the case of the respondents that in the previous financial year the auction was approved of higher offer/bid. Their stand is, that the highest bid of the petitioner is not reasonably justifiable and has further scope of enhancement. The basis for this assessment is merely a statement of said Sana Ullah.
7. Under clause 2(d) of Punjab Local Governments (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules, 2016, a contractor means a person eligible to make contract with the local government and obviously , this condition would apply at the time of conducting auction. Under Rule 6 ibid, the list of participants eligible for the auctio n are those who have deposited the earnest 'money , whose list is displayed by the Mayor/Chairman or any authorized officer. Under Rule 9 of Punjab Local Governments. (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules, 2016, the contract is awarded to the highest bidder through an open auction by adopting the prescribed procedure. The reserved price was to be determined under Rule 10(2) of Punjab Local Governments (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules, 2016 on the basis of average actual income of respective local government for the last three years. Under Rule 11 of Punjab Local Governments (Auction of Collection Rights) Rules, 2016, three attempts can be made to award the contract through open bid either equal to or more than the reserved price before the commencement of the financial year. Under Rule 12 ibid, highest bid so offered can be rejected if it is lesser than the reserved price and then the collection rights shall be put to re-auction otherwise the highest bid shall be placed before the house within ten days for its approval. The highest bid so received should be reasonably justifiable, having no scope of further enhancement in view of the local government. However , while assessing this. the both previous or present comparative bids be taken into consideration. In other words, some tangible evidence or documentary-based facts shall be appreciated.
8. By applying these rules it appears that the matter of highest bidder should have been approved by the respondents and putting for re-auction will perpetuate the injustice, which this Court shall never permit.
9. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is allowed , the auction dated 30.05.2019, published in the Daily Nawa-e-W aqt dated 24.05.2019 is hereby cancelled with a further direction to the respondents to issue the contract to the petitioner for the period he made the highest bid.