SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.----T ersely , the facts as have been gathered from the memorandum of the insta nt petition, are as such that the respondent No.6 was granted leasehold rights of establishing and running an amusement park at Iqbal Stadium, Faisa labad for a period of 15 years which was further extendable for another term of five years with mutual consent of the parties in December , 1998 by the respondents Nos.2 to 5. The said contract expired on 1-4.1 1.2014, which was extended for another term of five years but a term for further extension for another five years was incorporated in the same allegedly in violation of original terms and conditions as incorporated in the agreement of the year 1998. The extendable period came to an end on 14.11.2019, whereafter the lease hold rights of the subject site were put to an open auction vide advertisement dated 29.01.2020. The petitioner along with others as well as respondent No.6 participated in the bidding process. The petitioner was highest bidder with the maximum bid of Rs.12.1 Million. Purportedly , after the successful completion of bidding process and declaration of the petitione r as highest bidder , the respondents Nos.2 to 5, since in league with respondent No.6, managed to get instituted Writ Petition No.9588 of 2020 but during pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of first right of refusal clause as put in the advertisement dated 29.01.2020 awarded the contract to the respondent No.6 vide the impugned agreement dated 21.02.2020; hence, the instant constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the whole exercise is tainted with malice and mala fide in order to benefit the respondent No.6 at the cost of State exchequer and rights of the petitioner; that the respondents Nos.2 to 5 maliciously designed the terms of advertisement for participation in the bidding process only to accommodate the respondent No.6. Adds that the maximum length of contract of leasehold rights which could' have been granted to the respondent No.6 was upto 20 years which have already been enjoyed by the respondent No.6, as such introduction of the term of further extension for five years in the subsequent contract dated 14.11.2014 as well as conferring the right of first refusal to the respondent No.6 is beyond the domain of the respondents; that even otherwise once the respondent No.6 has participated in the bidding process and abstained from further competing with the rest of participants, how can the benefit of first right of refusal be granted to the respondent No.6; that even if the right of first refusal was available to the responde nt No.6, the same stood waived once the respondent No.6 actively particip ated in the bidding process; that the respondents Nos.2 to 5 being public functionaries are required to act fairly, justly and impartially but in the instant case they have acted in utter disregard to the above considerations; hence, by allowing the constitutional petition in hand, the act of awarding the contract regarding the leasehold rights of the playland/amusement park at Iqbal Stadium, Faisalabad to the respondent No.6 by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 in the garb of first right of refusal may kindly be declared to be result of malice, collusion, without jurisd iction, result of colourable exercise of authority , against the principle of open bidding, against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the agreement dated 21.02.2020 may be declared to be of no legal effect and the respondents Nos.2 to 5 may be directed to award the subject contract to the petitioner being the highest bidder . Reliance has been placed on Ishaq Khan Khakwani and another v.
Railway Board through Chairman and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 602), Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 619), Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager , Qauid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268 ), Ahmad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (PLD. 2019 Lahore 206), Hakim Ali v. Province of Sindh through Secretary , Coal Mines Development Depart and 6 others (2017 CLC 979 Sindh), Tarique Hussain v.
Government of Sindh through Secretary Auqaf and 3 others (2017 CLC Note 185), Haji Amin v. Pakistan Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (PLD 2009 Karachi 112), Mrs. Irene Wahab v. Lahore Dolsesan Trust Association (2002 SCMR 300), Muhammad Akram v. Additional District Judge and others (PLD 2008 Lahore 560), Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 223), Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. and others v. A.P.L. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (2002 CLD 1767 Karach;), Mst.
Gul Shahnaz v. Abdul Qayyum Soomro and another (PLD 2002 Karachi 333) and Gul Sher and others v.
Additional District Judge, Mirpur Mathelo and others ( 2000 YLR 1 147-Karachi).
3. On the contrary , learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and learned Law Officer have submitted that all the legal and codal formalities as required by law have been followed and as per mandate of law on the subject the leasehold rights of the playland/amusement park at Iqbal Stadium, Faisalabad have been granted to the respondent No.6 on the basis of right of first refusal; thus, the instant writ petition may be dismissed with costs.
4. Heard.
5. The relevant terms and conditions, as per advertisement dated 29.01.2020 in "Daily Dunya", to the present case are necessary to be reproduced here, which are:- '5. The intending firm's/parties shall have 20 years experience in running the sizeable Amusement Park spreading over 15-20 Kanals along with authenticated documentary proof.
6. The offers tendered by parties who have been in litigation with any Government department/agency shall not be entertained. The firm should also submit affidavit on judicial paper that it has not been blacklisted by any government department/agency .
7. The first right of refusal shall be given to the previous lessee in respect of highest offer received.'
In respect of clause-5 ibid a Writ Petition bearing No. 7316 of 2020 titled "Javed Iqbal Shah and others v.
Management Iqbal Stadium Faisalabad and others was filed, certified copy of which has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and this Court while deciding the same on 10.02.2020 observed:- '3. At the very outset, it is noted that the Petitioners have challenged the requirements of the tender which essentially calls for experience in awarding the tender for lease of amusement park. There seems no vested right or interest of the Petitioners on the basis of which the instant petition has been filed. The Respondents are well within their authority to prescribe for qualifications for issuance of tender and such requirements do not operate as a clog on the right of the Petitioners or any other person to participate in the tender process, if the Petitioners are duly qualified. Merely having a desire to participate in the tender for a specific purpose does not entitle the Petitioners to any vested right on the basis of which this petition has been filed.
4. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Petition stands dismissed in limine.
After such order , there appears no reason to deliberate further on the issue beca use the said order has attained finality because nothing on record has been brought to show that the same was further agitated by filing Intra Court Appeal or before the apex Court of the country . Thus, the objection of the petition er with regards to the clause-5 has no worth, rather the respondents were well within their authority to prescribe for qualifications germane to submission of bids in respect of tender .
The petitioner did not have experience in respect of running an amusement park as required by the respondents Nos.2 to 5, as he did not submit any proof or evidence before the Administrator , Iqbal Stadium, Faisalabad, because such an experience is essential and necessary so as to protect the lives of the people especially the children coming to such recreational places for amusement purposes.
6. In addition to the above, the petitioner did not agitate the matter at the relev ant time before the competent authority and kept mum, rather participated in the bidding process. The respondent No.6 being in legal possession of the subject matter had the right of first refusal of the highest bid and that was for him to decide whether present rate was acceptable or not and if he opted to retain the lease on highest bid, the authorities were under obligation to execute the fresh lease in his favour and the same was done as per terms and condition, especially by following clause-7 of the tender notice/ advertisement dated 29.01.2020, which clauses have already been declared not to be against rights of the petitioner and other participants vide order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7316 of 2020, which has attained finality .
7. Apart from the above, clause-4 of the lease deed dated 14.11.2014 reads 'That the duration of tenancy shall be for a period of (5) years and extendable for further five years terms on rent mutually agreed between the parties, with 25% increase in rent after every three years' but despite such a vivid clause, the respondent No.6 raised no objection on open bidding, however , when the respondent No.6/previous lessee was in possession of the amusement park, the subject matter , he had right of first refusal to the highest bid, which was rightly offered to the respondent No.6 by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 as per clause 7 of the Advertisement dated 29.01.2020. In Siraj Ahmed through L.Rs. v. Faysal Bank Limited and others (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 91), it has been invariably held:- The matter is remanded to the executing Court i.e. Judge, Banking Court, Bahawalpur with the direction to conduct a fresh auction in accordance with law. The auction purchaser/Respondent No.2 shall have the right to participate in the fresh auction (if he so desires). He shall also be given the right of first refusal if he matches the highest bid.
In the even he does not wish to participate in the fresh auction or exercise his right of first refusal , the respondent- Bank shall refund to him the entire amoun t paid by him together with make up at the rate fixed by the State Bank of Pakistan from the date of the auction till the amount is refunded to him.' (underline mine for emphasis)
8. It has surfaced that the auction proceedings were held under the supervision of Supervisory Committee comprising of the following on the scheduled date and time i.e. 12.02.2020:-
1. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (F&P), Faisalabad;
2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Hd.Q), Faisalabad;
3. The District Of ficer (Sports), Faisalabad)
At the relevant time, no objections as have been agitated in the instant 'petition were raised by the petitioner and as stated above, when the' petitioner offered the highest bid, as per clause-7 of the Advertisement dated 29.01.2020, the respondent No.6 was offered as first right of refusal, who accepted the offer vide written consent dated 12.02.2020, so the lease agreement was executed in his favour and possession was handed over to him.
9. In view of the above, there appears no arbitrariness, illegality , irrationality and procedural impropriety or mala fide on the part of the respondents Nos.2 to 5, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, rather it is observed that the agreement has been executed in a transparent manner , legally , fairly and justly without any arbitrariness or irrationality and public money and public property has not been stolen/misspent and squandered.
10. So far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, with utmost respect, the same has not relevance to the peculi ar facts and circumstances of the case in hand; thus, being distinguished one are not helpful to the petitioner's case.