This writ petition has been filed by an unsuccessful bidder for the contract of export tax of Zila Council, Sargodha to challenge the auction which was subsequently held and approved in favour of respondent No.3 Muhammad Arshad.
2. The petition is based on the grievance hat the contract of collection of export tax had been earlier auctioned on 15-5-1989 and was closed at Rs.2,13,000.00 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his associates. This auction was annulled by the Commissioner Sargodha Division.
3. The brief background of the case is that District Council Sargodha has moved the Provincial Government for the purpose of revision of rate of certain items for the purpose of collection of export tax. On 8-6-1989 approval of alteration and enhancement for certain rates of octroi was conveyed' to the District Council. I have asked learned counsel for the District Council to state as a fact as to when the notification appeared in the official Gazette. It appears that draft notification for publication was sent on 8-6-1989 but it was actually published in the extraordinary official Gazette on 20th June 1989. The sanction of the revised rates assumes significance in view of the: fact that according to the notice published in the media all auctions which were being held prior to the approval of the Government were liable to be cancelled if the rates were subsequently revised.
4. Learned counsel for the District Council informs that at the auction held on 10-6-1989 respondent No.3 had amongst others offered the highest bid of Rs. 3,50,000.00. The confirmation of this auction was put before the house by resolution No.15 dated 17-6-1989. Which has been approved and formal agreement has been signed.
5. I had ordered pre-admission hearing in this case and refused to grant a stay order. I would not like to dilate on the merits of this case because I do not want the case of either party to be prejudice in view of the order that I propose to pass.
6. I have asked learned counsel for the petitioner whether he had before coming to this Court approached the Provincial Government which is vested with widest power in view of the provisions of Chapter XV of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 and in particular those of section 156 which read as under:- "156. Safeguards. If, in the opinion of Government, anything done or intended to be done by or on behalf of a local council is not in conformity with law or is in any way against public interest, the Government for reasons to be recorded may--
(a) quash the proceedings;
(b) suspend the execution of any resolution passed or order made by the local council or Committee; and
(c) prohibit the doing of anything proposed to be done."
Thereafter by virtue of section 157 the Government has the power to give direction and to have it implemented.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners as frankly stated that he did not approach the Government in this behalf and it is agreed on all hands that the powers vested in the Government referred to above constitute an adequate remedy in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is also agreed by one and all persons that this Court may direct the Secretary to Government of the Punjab in the Local Government department to examine the matter objectively and from the point of view of public interest and financial propriety in keeping strictly with the requirements of law. It will be open for parties to raise whatever pleas of fact or law are available to them and he will render a decision well before Ist of July, 1981 after examining the record. The officials of the District Council, Sargodha shall produce the record which is presently available with him before the Secretary to Government of the Punjab in the Local Government department tomorrow. The learned Addl. Advocate-General who is present will also convey the order of this Court to the Secretary.
8. After the decision has been rendered by the Secretary under the provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the doors of this Court are open for a person aggrieved provided he can make out a case for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
9. Since all the affected parties have been heard, the case is disposed of as a notice case. No order as to costs.
H.B.T./A-792/L