1. ' Saeeduzzaman Siddique, J.--The petitioner has challenged in this petition the cancellation of contract by respondent No,2, which authorized the petitioner to collect entrance fees at Zoological Garden, Karachi, for the period commencing from 1st July,1982 to 30th June, 1983. The fact as alleged in the petition are as follows:- ' Respondent 1 auctioned the right to collect entrance fee at Zoological Garden, Karachi, for a period of one year commencing from 1st July,1982. The petitioner's bid of Rs,8,70,000 being the highest was accepted by respondent 1, and the petitioner deposited with the respondent the bid amount of Rs,8,70,000 plus a sum of Rs,87,000 as security deposit. The petitioner after payment of the above amounts also executed the terms and conditions for the right to collect entrance fee on 12th May, 1982 which are filed with the petition as Annexure 'A'. It is alleged that the petitioner started collecting the entrance fees as prescribed from 1st August, 1982. However, on 13th September,1982 the petitioner received a letter from Deputy Director of respondent 1 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was collecting the entrance fees over and above the prescribed rate. On 21st November,1982 the Director Zoological Gargen, Karachi, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that on a surprise visit made by the Chairman Vigilance Committee, K.M.C., Karachi, it was found that the petitioner sold two tickets of paisa 50 each for Re.1 each on Gate No,1 and one ticket of paisa 50 for Re.1/- on Gate No,2 and thus charged 100% in excess of the prescribed rate. It was stated in said notice that the above act of petitioner amounting to contravention of Condition No,16 of the Terms and Conditions on which the right was granted to the petitioner. It was further stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 13th September,1982 in reply to an earlier letter issued by the Deputy Director Zoological Garden on 13th September, 1982 was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to submit his explanation and all documents which he wanted to reply in this behalf within 7 days of the receipt of notice failing which it was threatened that ex parte decision was to be taken including the termination of the contract for the remaining period of 1982-83, forfeiture of rest of the amount lying with the respondent and removal from the site as provided under terms and conditions No,12 of the grant. The petitioner submitted a reply, dated 21st November,1982 to the above show-cause notice and while the above explanation submitted by the petitioner was still under consideration another show-cause notice, dated 31st January,1983 was issued by the Director Recreation and Sports, K.M.C., Karachi, pointing out to the petitioner that on 21st January, 1983 the Assistant Legal Advisor of K.M.C. Mr.Yasin visited Zoological Garden alongwith his wife and two minor children who were charged Rs,4 as the entrance fees whereas according to schedule rate the petitioner was supposed to charge paisa 50 per adult and paisa 25 per child and, therefore, it was alleged that he over-charged the amount of entrance fees. The petitioner was once again called upon to show cause against the notice within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. In reply to the second show- cause notice the petitioner submitted the following reply on 6th February,1983:- "Dear Sir, ' We acknowledge the receipt of show-cause notice No,DDZG-109/83, dated 3rd January,1983, and wish to reply as under: ' That Mr.Yasin Keyani, Assistant Legal Advisor, KMC, is aware of the schedule exhibited for public view at the entrance of the Garden, His allegation of overcharging is denied.
2. ' We suggest K.M.C. To issue complementary entrance passes to their employees in case free entrance is desired for them.
3. ' Yours faithfully, Seven Star Enterprises." It appears that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and, therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by respondent 1 to enquire into the allegation against the petitioner who by notice, dated 2nd February,1983 required the petitioner to appear before him on 7th February,1983 at 2-00 p.m. In his office. The petitioner was directed to bring all the documents and witnesses which he desire to produce in support of his case and he was further notified that the enquiry will be continued daily until its finalization. It appears that the petitioner did not appear and participate in the enquiry proceedings which were decided against him and accordingly by letter, dated 26th February, 1983, respondent 2 cancelled the contract and forfeited the remaining amount of money and the security deposit on the ground that the petitioner had overcharged the entrance fee from the public in violation of the terms and conditions of grant. The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of his contract and has claimed the following reliefs:- "The petitioner humbly prays as under:
(i) That the order dated 26th February, 1983 under No,DDZG/206/83 at Annexure 'L' may be declared illegal, ultra vires and to have been passed without any lawful authority thus illegal, void and inoperative, and be quashed.
(ii) That the respondents be restraind from interfering with the rights of the petitioner to collect entrance fee at Zoological Garden, Karachi.
(iii) That the forfeiture of Rs, 2,90,000 received by the respondent 1 being the balance of the advance one year lease money is illegal ultra vires and the petitioner be declared to be entitled to continue as Contractor for the collection of entrance fee upto 30th June, 1983.
(iv) That the forfeiture of Rs,87,000 deposited as security with the respondent No,1 by the petitioner be declared without any lawful authority and illegal.
(v) Costs of this petition be borne by the respondents.
(vi) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances be granted."
4. ' A perusal of the statement of facts and the reliefs claimed in the petition clearly show that the petitioner in substance in seeking enforcement of a contractual obligation through this petition and on this ground alone we could have dismiss this petition. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that respondent 2 had no authority under the law to terminate the contract and, therefore, the order dated 26th February, 1983 is wholly without jurisdiction and lawful authority, we asked the learned counsel to point out the relevant provisions in the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 or in the rules framed thereunder in that behalf but he was unable to do so. At this stage we enquired from Mr.Muslim Naqvi, the learned Law Officer of respondent 1 who was present in Court in another case to assist us, and he very pertinently invited our attention to the entry appearing in the second part at Serial No,1 of the First Schedule to the Sind Councils (Contract) Rules, 1980, appearing at page 265 of the Booklet entitled "The Sind Local Government manual" issued by the Government of Sind Department of Local Government and Rural Development (November 1981 Edition). According to above rule the Mayor of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, is entitled to enter into a contract, other than that which relates to the acquisition, purchase or transfer by grant, gift, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise of immovable property or any interest or any right thereto, of the value not exceeding Rs,10 lacs.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point us any contrary rule or provision of law in that behalf. In the case before us the value of the contract admittedly did not exceed Rs, 10 lacs.
6. The contract also did not relate to the acquisition, purchase or transfer by grant, gift, mortgage, lease, exchange of immovable property or any interest therein and, therefore, respondent 2 was entitled under the rule referred to above to enter into such a contract and the order of cancellation passed by him did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner. No other point was raised. We find no substance in this petition which is dismissed summarily.