1. SYED SHAHID BAHAR, J.---The above titled writ petition has been filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, whereby the petitioner sought infra relief:-- "It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the second and third auctions conducted by the respondent No.2 lacked transparency and was against the established cannons of administrative justice. The said auctions caused loss to the exchequer of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the petitioner being the second highest bidder in the first bidding was entitled to be called upon for the acceptance letter after the successful bidder had failed to deposit the hid money according to the payment schedule. iii. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Order the cancellation of the acceptance letter issued in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of Plot No.4 admeasuring 470x220 situate in F/10 Markaz, Islamabad after having collusively held the third auction proceeding. iv. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to order the investigation of this matter through competent investigation agencies so-that the author of this crime could not go unpunished. v. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to allow this petition with compensatory cost as the petitioner has suffered due to the denial of administrative justice by the dishonest acts of the respondents."
2. Precise facts of the case according to petitioner are that a plot of land bearing No.4 measuring 470x220 situate in F-10 Markaz, Islamabad was the property of AKLASC department, Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the same was sold through public 'auction to Messrs Gerry's Manager, Office No.1, Plot No.32, Blue Area Islamabad on 19.11.2019 for Rs.2,526,250,000/-. It is averred that petitioner herein after having fulfilled the eligibility criteria participated in the first auction which had taken place on 10.10.2018. It is contended that petitioner had offered Rs.2.602.625,000/- as the total price of the plot in question, however, Messrs Ayyans and Company having office No.6, 1st Floor Plaza, Sector F-10 Markaz, Islamabad was declared successful bidder and respondent No.2 issued letter of acceptance to the said company. It is further contended that the successful bidder could not deposit the remaining bid amount as per schedule which led to the cancellation of the bid. It is averred that petitioner being the second highest bidder at that time approached the office of respondent No.2 with the request that he may be allowed to pay the auction amount of the said plot, but the request of the petitioner was not acceded to on the ground that he had no BCL in his favour. It is contended that refusal was a discriminatory act as the successful bidder Messrs Ayyans and Company had no BCL at that time. It is further contended that respondent No.2 without observing the due process sold out the said plot to respondent No.3. Petitioner came to know that the plot in question was auctioned on 14.05.2019 behind closed door and only one individual participated as bidder. It is claimed that respondent No.3 was unable to deposit the balance amount as per schedule of auction. It is maintained that when petitioner was left with no choice, he filed writ petition in Islamabad High Court Pakistan bearing No.2281 of 2019, but the said petition was ultimately dismissed on 07.06.2022 by observing therein that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The petitioner herein challenged the entire auction proceedings conducted by respondent No.8 as the same has been executed in an unlawful manner and due to which the concerned functionaries have cause great loss to the exchequer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts and grounds narrated in the petition and argued that petitioner herein participated in first auction which had taken place on 10.10.2018, in which petitioner offered Rs.2,602,625,000/- as the total price of the plot in question, however, Messrs Ayyans and Company was declared successful bidder and respondent No.2 issued letter of acceptance to the said company, while' the successful bidder could not deposit the remaining bid amount as per schedule which led to the cancellation of the bid. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner being the second highest bidder at that time approached the office of respondent No.2 with the request that he may be allowed to pay the auction amount of the said plot, but the official respondents did not allow to deposit the same. The learned counsel vehemently contended that respondent No.2 without observing the due process sold out the said plot to the respondent No.3. The learned counsel staunchly contended that the plot in question was auctioned on 14.05.2019 behind closed door and only one individual' participated as bidder, hence, the petitioner has a prior right as the petitioner is second highest bidder, but the official respondents acted otherwise, thus, keeping in view this aspect of the matter indulgence of this Court through the instant writ petition is solicited. The learned counsel vigorously argued that the right of business is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Interim Constitution, 1974 which cannot be snatched by the wish and whim of official respondents, the official respondents by doing so meted out discriminatory treatment which is not warranted by law on the subject. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the writ petition.
4. Preliminary arguments have been heard.
5. The stance of the petitioner is that the petitioner may be declared the second highest bidder in the first bidding regarding plot No.4 measuring 470x220 situated in F/10 Markaz, Islamabad, which was the property of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and he was entitled to be called upon for the acceptance letter after the successful bidder, who failed to deposit the bid money according to the payment schedule.
6. The record shows that the petitioner never remained a successful bidder in first auction, while the successful bidder also failed to comply with the terms of bid, which ensued into a second bid process, which too had a similar fate. The record shows that third auction proceedings had been conducted after giving advertisement for auction in the newspaper dated 25.10.2019 for 19.11.2019, however, in the said auction proceedings, Messrs Gerry's Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited/respondent No.4 was declared successful bidder. A perusal of judgment dated 07.06.2022 issued by Islamabad High Court Pakistan shows that the respondents presented the whole record out there which reveals that the final acceptance of bid of Messrs Gerry's Pakistan (Pvt.) limited/respondent No.4 has been issued on 25.02.2020 including the payments' schedule, which has further been confirmed by the- Cabinet of AJK Government, thus this aspect of the matter postulates that the bid has been conducted in an open manner, wherein petitioner has not participated in any manner. The record further postulates that petitioner pas part of 1st auction proceedings, whereby he himself withdrew his initial seed money, hence, his legal right could not survive to challenge the auction proceedings.
7. The record further shows that the plot in question was sold out to respondent No.4 herein and payment has also been made by the said Company/respondent No.4 and the said plot has also been transferred to the said company. Hence, instant writ petition has also been filed herein at belated stage. obviously hit by the doctrine of laches.
8. Relief in writ jurisdiction is equitable in its nature. and the person who asks for such relief must come promptly with clean hands in the attire of bona fide, that too by following and observing all the protocols required to be adhered to, qua equitable relief i.e. delay defeats equity, he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, law helps vigilant and luls indolent. The Honorable Apex Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Arif v. Uzma Afzal and others reported as 2011 SCMR 74 held:- "There is no cavil to the proposition that the conduct of petitioner can be taken into consideration in allowing or disallowing equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction. The principle that the Court should lean in favour of adjudication of cases on merits, appears to be available for invocation only when the person relying on it himself comes to the court with clean hands and equitable considerations also lie in his favour. High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is bound to proceed on maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity". Constitutional jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction. Whoever comes to High Court to seek relief has to satisfy the conscience of the Court that he has clean hands. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. The High Court will not grant relief under this Article, when the petitioner does not come to the Court with clean hands.
9. He may claim relief only when he himself is not violating provisions of law, especially of the law under which he is claiming entitlement."
10. Squeezing the supra principles nutshell result is that law shut its eyes from a person who himself sleeps over his/her rights and thereafter tries to seek aid after deep slumber.
11. Squeezed analysis.
12. Petitioner in '1st round of litigation approached the Islamabad High Court by filing a writ petition.
13. After dismissal of the same, he opted to switch over and filed the instant constitutional petition after round about 05 years.
14. The petitioner has not made out a case for indulgence in an extra-ordinary jurisdiction, thus, relief prayed for is declined.
15. For the above multiple reasons, finding no substance in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed under doctrine of limine control, miscellaneous applications meet the same fate.