TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J:- The petitioner through this constitutional petition has assailed the action of the respondents in not confirming the auction of the plot measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No.l71-min situated at Ayudhiapur, Lahore to him.
2. The facts briefly arc that a plot bearing khasra No.l71-min measuring 3 Kanals 8 Marlas mentioned at Serial No.84 of the list issued on 10.6.1980 by the Administrator (Residual Property)
Board of Revenue, Lahore, was put to auction and the reserved price was shown as Rs.20400/- The petitioner deposited Rs.1000/- with the Auction Committee to enable him to participate in the auction. The auction was held on the 30th of June, 1980 and the petitioner's highest bid was for Rs.23000/-.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had already paid l/4th of the bid money as required under the scheme. Grievance has been advanced that the Auction Committee in an arbitrary manner refused to confirm his auction vide his order dated 4th of January, 1981. It is argued by the learned counsel that Para- 19(2)(a) of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties as amended vide Notification dated 12th October, 1980 provides as under:- "lf the highest bid offered for a house, shop, un-registered Industrial concern or building site, situate within the urban limits of District Headquarters' is not less than its reserve price, it may be accepted by a Committee to be constituted in this behalf by the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties)."
4. On this basis it is argued that the petitioner's bid was higher than the reserved price and as such his case clearly falls within the afore stated provisions. It has further been argued that the petitioner has been mettled out a discriminatory treatment. To substantiate this aspect of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has quoted the case of one Anjam Ayyub who gave a bid of Rs.22500/- for a plot measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas in the-same khasra number and whose reserved price was mentioned at Serial No.81 as ks.21000/-. However, his bid had been confirmed in view of the afore stated amended provision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the department respondent has not controverted the stance taken by the petitioner seriously. It has also been admitted in the comments submitted by the department that the case of the Anjam Ayyub was confirmed as he offered Rs.9500/- per kanal. No such offer was ever extended to the ,petitioner. Since the point that other persons placed in similar circumstances have not been denied seriously and the case of the petitioner was not processed in accordance with the amended Scheme for the Management and Disposal fo the Available Urban .
Properties. I accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 4th January, 1981 with the direction that the case be remanded to respondent No.1, who shall decide the matter by giving full opportunity to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.