ORDER: ALLY MADDAD SHAH, J.--1. The petitioners purchased 600 bags of betelnuts, weighing about 33.000 Kgs. by giving highest bid of Rs, 7,90,000 at a public auction held by the Customs Authorities on 27th October, 1985. They deposited two lac rupees as initial deposit to the extent of 25% of the bid amount. On their failing to make payment of the balance amount, the Customs Authorities forfeited the initial deposit of Rs, 2 lacs. The petitioners have challenged in this petition not only the forfeiture of the sum of two lac rupees but also the holding of the auction. The grounds agitated by them (the petitioners) are that the betelnuts put to auction were not fit for human consumption and the Customs Authorities contravened the provisions of the Food Laws and no legal contract could be effected and the forfeiture of the sum of Rs, 2 lacs was illegal, void ab initio and of no legal effect. They have sought the relief of such declaration and further relief of refund of the sum of two lac rupees.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has reiterated the grounds stated in the Memo of the petition. He has made reference to section 6 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and urged that the betelnuts which were not fit for human consumption could not be put to auction. He has also made reference to the provisions of sections 23 and 65 of the Contract Act and contended that the contract .established at the auction amounted to a transaction forbidden by law and the initial deposit of two lac rupees was to be refunded. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the stock of the betelnuts was put to auction on the basis of "what it was and where it was" and the petitioners consciously offered bid at the auction and a legal contract was established.
3. The grounds agitated in the petition and advanced by the learned counsel before us involve determination of facts as regards the quality of the goods put to auction and that can be done by recording evidence. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the petitioners do not have efficacious remedy as to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
We refrain from making observations in respect of the provisions of the Pure Food Ordinance and the Contract Act put forth by the learned' counsel as they might prejudice case of either party if taken to proper forum.
4.For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the petition as not maintainable. No order is made for costs.