' By the present order I propose to dispose of four Civil Revitions Nos.540 to 543-D of 1992, having been preferred by the Province of Punjab against four different persons, Yousaf Ali, Shaheen Gul, Ghulam Rasool and Noor Khan, as exactly similar facts and legal propositions are involved.
2. The Forest Department had offered timber wood for sale, to take place in open auction, notified to the public through press. The auction was held on 13-1-1985, and the respondent being the highest bidder proceeded to deposit the earnest money and formally on 16-1-1985 he was informed abaft acceptance of his bid and was required to make payment of the remaining price within 30 days. In the meantime, one Muhammad Ismail, a contractor of the department, made a complaint to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Division, bringing to his notice the fact that the wood had been auctioned at an abnormally low price, expressing readiness to pay more price.
He is said to have even made deposit of certain amount in advance. The Chief Conservator ordered the D.F.O. to cancel the auction and the D.F.O. in compliance of the orders proceeded to notify cancellation of the auction dated 13-1-1985. The successful bidders brought civil actions for a declaration and permanent injunction, in order to have themselves declared to be the lawful owners of the lots of the timber in question, and cancellation of the auction was also sought to be declared as ultra vires, illegal and mala fide. A further prayer was made that the Departmental Authorities be perpetually restrained from reauctioning the timber and from interfering with the carriage or removal of the timber by the successful bidders.
2. The suits were decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal (Mr. Akbar Ali Cheema), on 16-3-1991, and the decrees were affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal (Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ansari), on 18-6-1992.
3. The Government Pleader has assailed the soundness of the findings of the Courts below, maintaining that the higher authorities of the department were competent to cancel the auction in public interest, especially when there was an offer made by another contractor for payment of more money. Strangely it is also submitted in the grounds of the revision petition that the respondent was at liberty to remove the wood from the sale depot, on payment of the balance price. Since he failed to deposit the remaining auction money, he could not claim to be the owner of the timber wood. This is complete contradiction in terms. It would follow from the aforesaid assertion made by the Government Pleader that the plaintiff-respondent's bid was operative and had not been undone. On the contrary, however, it is also submitted that the auction was competently cancelled by the D.F.O. under orders of his superior.
4. It is averred by the plaintiff-respondent that he was always prepared to make payment of the balance money and had even approached the officials to make necessary endorsement on the challan form, but he had been informed that proceedings for cancellation of the auction were in progress and he was out of picture.
5. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that unless the entire amount was paid, the plaintiff could not claim ownership and could also not seek a declaration to that effect, although he could file a suit for specific performance of the contract, there having been brought into being only an agreement to sell and no final agreement of sale. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was the successful bidder and the bid had also been accepted, the initial deposit had also been made, but at the instance of a third person, who was at liberty to have participated in the auction, but had not done so, the proceedings lawfully conducted by way of public auction were nullified and the plaintiff was prevented from making payment of rest of the sale price. Surprisingly, before doing so, he was not even heard by the authorities by issuing to him a show-cause notice and thus he was condemned unheard and a cardinal principle of natural justice was infringed. Since the Chief Conservator, Forests had made an order on 10-2-1985, the plaintiff was prevented from paying the entire price of timber, within a month of the auction, and for the said default he was not to blame. The Government Pleader could not satisfy the Courts below about the authority that vested in the Chief Conservator, Forests in the matter and his competence for cancellation of auction already finalized and for holding an auction afresh. D.F.O. had not proceeded to cancel the bid, on his own, admittedly but had acted in the impugned manner under the orders of his superior.
6. Muhammad Ismail may be a mischief-monger or may have just been impelled by a sense of rivalry or jealousy in business. The learned counsel appearing for the Province of Punjab has stated in the Court that the money Muhammad Ismail had deposited had been withdrawn by him long ago, as the Civil Court had issued a stay order and he had got disgruntled. The learned counsel has not all been able to convince this Court how do the judgments and decrees delivered by the two Courts below suffer from any legal infirmity or material irregularity or an error in exercise of their jurisdiction. I am not impressed by the stereotype submissions made by the learned counsel to the effect that the Courts below have misconstrued the documents on record and misinterpreted the rules and the findings suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence without really pointing out where the fault lies. No case is made out for interference with the verdicts of the lower forums by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitions being without merit are hereby dismissed. The plaintiffs-respondents shall be afforded an opportunity to make payment of the remaining sale-price and remove the timber, although the same must have undergone a lot of deterioration over the years, eight years having gone by.