1. ' KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, J.---This Constitutional petition calls into question the auction for the leasing out of the recovery of octroi of Al-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo, alleged to have been held by Union Council, Gharo, (respondent No,2) on 21-3-1993 and the confirmation of the same by the Government of Sindh by letter dated 11-4-1993.
2. ' The facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No,2 through a public notice published in newspapers announced the holding of auction for the recovery of octroi and piri tax of Al-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo and village Gharo for the year 1993-94 through open auction to be held on 21-3-1993 or 27-3-1993 or 10-4-1993. The earnest money in respect of Al-Asif Sugar Mills, Gharo, was fixed at Rs,23,682 while that for village Gharo was fixed at Rs,8,800 which was to be deposited by the intending bidders in the form of bank draft before the auction proceedings. According to the petitioner in response to the aforesaid public notice its representative attended the office of respondent No,2 on 20-3-1993 along with the bank draft for Rs,24,000 by way of earnest money in respect of lease for octroi collection of Al-Asif Sugar Mills when the Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2 informed the said representative that the auction proposed to be held on 21-3- 1993 would not be held on that date due to his indisposition and would be held on 27-3-1993, and on the request of the said representative the Secretary also handed over to him a written intimation (notice) to that effect. It is alleged that 27-3-1993 was declared a public holiday on account of `Eid-ul-Fitr' and therefore the proposed auction automatically stood postponed to 10-4- 1993. However, when the representative of the petitioner attended the office of respondent No,2 on 10-4-1993 to participate in the auction he was informed that the said auction had already taken place on 21-3-1993. Thereupon, it is claimed, the petitioner approached respondents Nos.1 and 3 but did not get any satisfactory response. By letter dated 11-4-1993 the bid of Rs,12,20,000 made by respondent No,4 in the said auction was confirmed by the Government of Sindh.
3. ' Mr. G.H. Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that no proper auction was held on 21-3-1993 and the so-called auction proceedings of that date were just a mock proceedings to keep out the petitioner from participating in the auction. He further submitted that the Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2 having notified the petitioner on 20-3-1993 about the postponement of the auction scheduled on 21-3-1993 no auction could have taken place on that date behind the back of the petitioner and the; fore too the so-called auction was invalid. As regards the bona fides of the petitioner the counsel relied on photocopy of the bank draft which the petitioner had produced before respondent No,2 on 20-3-1993. He stated that had the petitioner not been interested in the auction he would not have deposited the requisite earnest money and would not have attended the office of respondent No,2 on 20-3-1993 for handing over the bank draft there.
4. ' Mr. Syed Muhammad Zaki, learned counsel for respondent No,4 has vehemently disputed the allegation of the petitioner regarding the said auction. His submission was that a proper auction in accordance with public notice was held on 21-3-1993 when at least ten bidders participated and submitted their bids. Of these, respondent No,4 being the highest bidder was awarded the contract.
5. He relied on the auction proceedings, copies whereof were filed along with the counter-affidavit of respondent No,4. In so far as the notice dated 20-3-1993 issued by the Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2 to the petitioner about the postponement of the auction on 21-3-1993 is concerned, the counsel submitted that the same is a forged document and if issued by the then Secretary it was obtained subsequently after the then Secretary had been removed as Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2. He submitted that the then Secretary, who is alleged to have signed the disputed notice, was on duty on 21-3-1993 when the auction was held. The auction was also attended by the Development Officer, Local Government, Chorabari as an observer. Accordingly the counsel contended that there was no scope for questioning the propriety of the auction.
6. ' A representative of respondent No,2 who was also present in Court along with the originals of the auction proceedings supported the contention of respondent No,4.
7. ' The intimation notice alleged to have been issued by the Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2 on 20-3-1993 to the representative of the petitioner regarding the postponement of the auction on 21-3-1993 appears to be a strange document. It purports to have been issued by the Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2 on 20-3-1993, i,e, a day before the proposed auction and the ground for postponement of the auction on 21-3-1993 is stated to be the illness of the signatory of the notice. Admittedly on 20-3-1993 the Secretary/Chief Executive was present on duty and it is not understood how could he predict his illness on the following day. It is also not understood as to how he could presume that the auction would be postponed even if he was absent on the next date. If the record of the auction proceedings is to be believed this person was very much present on 21-3-1993 and this was affirmed by the representative of respondent No,2 who was present in Court. It appears from the documents produced in Court that the Development Officer of the Local Government was also present for the auction on 21-3-1993 as an observer and had submitted his report about the auction to the Assistant Director, Local Government, Thatta.
8. From the copies of documents available on file and the originals brought by the representative of respondent No,2, it appears that ten persons participated in the auction on 21-3-1993 and amongst them respondent No,4 was the highest bidder whose bid was subsequently confirmed by the Government of Sindh.
9. ' In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the authenticity of notice dated 20-3-1993 said to have been issued by Secretary/Chief Executive of respondent No,2. Even if such a notice had been issued to the petitioner, prudence demanded that he should have, nevertheless, checked up the position on 21-3-1993, the date on which the auction was notified, for, after all, the reason for postponement as stated in the notice was an eventuality which was itself not certain. Except for the so-called notice of postponement issued on 20-3-1993 there appears to be no document suggesting any irregularity in the holding of the auction on 21-3-1993 and indeed none was pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. We fmd ourselves unable to place reliance on the said notice of postponement dated 20-3-1993 for declaring the auction of 21-3-1993 as invalid. That apart, the petition involves disputed documents and controversial questions of facts and for this reason too the petition would not be maintainable. Accordingly we fmd no force in the petition and dismiss the same. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
10. ' By a short order we had dismissed this petition on 29-6-1993 and the above are the reasons therefor.