' NAIMUDDIN, J.--By this constitution petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the petitioners seek a declaration that the auction for collection of octroi held by the Chairman, Union Council Gujro, Karachi, on 20-5-1985, and the acceptance of the highest bid made by Lucky Trader, respondent 3, is illegal and of no legal effect and for a direction to hold fresh auction after publishing the same in a widely circulated newspaper, through the Department of Information, which, according to the petitioners may result in larger participation of the public in the interest of respondent 2 and the petitioners, and to restrain respondent 2 to hand over the charge of Octroi post in consequence of the alleged illegal contract pending disposal of this constitution petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition, as stated by the petitioners in the petition, are that a notice was published in The Daily Nawa-iWaqat, dated 29-2-1985, for general information of the public that auction of the right to collect octroi for the financial year 1985-86, would be held on 6-5-1985 at 10-00 a.m. In the office of respondent 2. By the said notice the public was also informed that the persons interested to participate in the auction should get themselves registered after paying requisite fee before the auction is held. The reserve price mentioned in the notice was Rs,6 lacs with a deposit of Rs,25,000. The right to accept or reject the highest bid without assigning any reason was reserved. Accordingly, the petitioners got themselves registered.
3. On 15-5-1985, while reading The Daily Inqilab the petitioners found that the respondents had published a notice for auction for the second time which was scheduled to be held on 25-5-1985, in the office of respondent 2. Again on 16-5-1985, respondent 2, published another notice in the Daily Aghaz whereby the date of the auction was fixed on 20-5-1985. According to the petitioners the notice published in the Daily Aghaz did not come to their knowledge for the reason that the Daily Aghaz, of Karachi is not widely circulated newspaper and when they went to the Office of respondent 2. On 25-5-]985, at 9 a.m. Pursuant to the notice published in The Daily Inqilab, of Karachi dated 15-5-1985, they learnt that the auction had already taken place on 25-5-1985, therefore, the petitioners have filed this constitution petition on 25-6-1985, questioning the auction.
4. We have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners, ' It is submitted by Mr. Qureshi that the petitioners had a right to participate in the auction having got themselves registered and they were not given any notice for the auction held on 20-5-1985.
Alternatively, he submitted that the notice was not published in newspaper of wide circulation and, therefore, not sufficient.
5. Both these submissions, in our opinion, are without force for the petitioners themselves have stated that the notice of auction sclie7duled to be held on 20-5-1985, was published in The Daily Aghaz of Mrachi, dated 16-5-1985, but they have not stated how and when they came to know of this notice. It seems that they had notice of change of the date of auction. Further, Mr. Qureshi has neither been able to show that it is the requirement of the law the notice must be published in any particular newspaper, nor has he pointed out any rules or any other provisions of law which could be said to have been violated. In any case, this would not make the contract to collect Octroi entered with respondent 2 illegal.
6. As regards the submission that The Daily Aghaz of Karachi in which the notice was published is not of wide circulation and, therefore, the publication of notice was not sufficient, it may be stated that the submission cannot be examined in the absence of any data given in the petition and without recording evidence. This we cannot do and in any case, are not inclined to do. If the petitioners could come to know of the notice of auction for 26-5-1985, which was published in The Daily Inqilab of Karachi, dated 15-5-1985, they would or could very well have noticed the notice of auction published in The Daily Aghaz of Karachi, as to us, both the newspapers seem to be similar in circulation.
The petitioners have not stated in the petition as to what happened on 6-5-1985, the first date fixed for auction. Thus, they have suppressed the material facts.
Lastly, since the right of third party has come into existence and since the right auctioned is for a period of one year only and now about three months have already passed we would not like to interfere in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioners may however, seek their remedy, if any, available under any law.
' We therefore, dismiss this petition in limine.