1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-By a resolution dated the 20th of June 1968, the District Council, Jhang, on the expiry of the previous permission, granted a fresh permission to the petitioners to run a cattle market for five years in Chak No. 151. The consideration for the renewed permission was Rs. 10,000 to be paid by annual instalments spread over the contracted five years period. How-- ever, in 1969, Din Muhammad and Hakim Sikander offered to the Council to pay Rs. 60,000 for permission to run this cattle market during the same period, as stipulated with the petitioners, but the District Council turned down this request by resolution of the 6th of February 1969. Din Muhammad and Hakim Sikander challenged this resolution before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, who, by his order dated the 10th of December 1969, set aside the resolution of the Council, holding it to be void and without any legal sanctity. He further directed that "the District Council, Jhang, should make arrangements for the land within three months themselves and till they make arrange--ments for the land, the present lessee may be allowed to continue in the existing terms". The petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner by a writ petition in the High Court of Lahore, which has been dismissed.
2. The main contention urged is that the Commissioner had acted illegally by entertaining a time- barred appeal of Din Muhammad and Hakim Sikander, rescinding the resolution of the District Council, which had been duly passed and put into execution inasmuch as the initial installments for two years of the lease amounting to Rs.1,000 and Rs.1,500 had also been duly deposited.
3. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has rightly hey that Din Muhammad and Hakim Sikander had moved the Commissioner under Article 86 of the Basic Democracies Order, and that Order LXXIV thereof empowered the Commissioner to quash the proceedings if, in his opinion, anything done or intended to be done by or on behalf of the Local Council, was not in conformity with law or was in any way against public interest. 1 4 seems clear 0 us that the resolution, as adopted by the Council if allowed to be implemented, would have caused immense log to the Council in heedless disregard of public funds. We do no think that this was a fit case for intervention by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners have been put to any log on account of the resolution of the Council, they can seek relied by way of damages, if so advised.
4. This petition is dismissed.