' SYED IBNE ALI, ACTG. C.J.---Some commercial plots situated at Sher Shah Road, Sadar Bazar Nowshera Cantt belong to Cantonment Board Nowshera. The lease rights of these plots were to be sold through public auction. For that purpose on 22-4-1994 advertisements were published in the press. Those interested in the auction deposited, per demand, Rs, 20,000 as security. The auction was held on 24-4-1994. The following five bids were found the highest:-{{TABLE}}
(a) Highest bid of Rs, 25 million.
(b) Second Rs,24.5. Million.
(c) Third Rs, 24 million.
(d) Fourth Rs, 17 million.
(e) Fifth. Rs, 16 million.
2. The petitioner offered Rs, 1,55,00,000. After auction, first three highest bidders were asked to deposit 1/10th of their respective bids before the close of the office time, but they did not comply with this stipulation, therefore, their bids were rejected.
3. . As the auction proceedings failed, the other bidders who had taken part in the auction offered bids through private negotiations for the purchase of the lease rights of the plot in question.
Muhammad Wali offered Rs,1,21,00,000, Multan Khan offered Rs, 1,70,00,000 and Shah Gulab respondent No,5 herein offered Rs, 1,75,00,000 They requested for the deposit of 1/10th of their respective bids which was allowed conditionally. The Board considered the bids and as the bid of Rs, 1,75,00,000 offered by respondent No,5 was highest, by resolution dated 28-4-1994, the authorities approved the same and sanction of the competent Authority in this behalf was asked for. After this, the petitioner herein offered the bid of Rs, 1,85,00,000 for the plot in question, vide his application dated 29-5-1994 which was rejected intimating him that he offered the bid at the belated stage when the highest bid of respondent No,5 through resolution dated 28-4-1994 has already been approved.
4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner feels aggrieved, therefore, he has filed the present writ petition with a prayer that the impugned action of the respondents be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and it be directed that the plot be re-auctioned.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in C.M.
6. It is not disputed that the petitioner offered bid when the authority had already considered the bids of the bidders and as the bid of respondent No,5 was found highest, the authority by resolution dated 28-4-1994 approved the same. Thereafter the petitioner allowed respondent No,5 to proceed with the formalities pertaining to the purchase of the plot by him. Sale-deed was registered and the transaction was completed in his favour. He has spent heavy amount on the registration, construction plan and on the construction of the plot. The first floor of the building had been completed. In the circumstances, the only course available to him was to seek his remedy by filing suit in the civil Court alongwith an application for restraining the respondent No,5 to proceed with the above formalities. He has not done any such thing but allowed himself to watch the formalities till completion. It may be observed that the writ petition is not a mechanical course in every case unless it is shown that the authorities have violated the law and that no other remedy is available to an aggrieved person. In the present case, while passing the resolution in favour of the respondent No,5 with respect to the sale of the lease rights of plot No, 8 there was no bid of the petitioner before the authorities. No legal objection can, therefore, be taken against the impugned action of the authorities when they passed the resolution when as a matter of record the petitioner was not a party before the authorities while passing the resolution approving the highest bid of respondent No,5. We observed that in a similar case when resolution having been.Passed and other costly formalities having been undergone, this Court ought to decline relief to the petitioner in the exercise of its writ petition which is essentially discretionary in nature.
7. This writ petition also suffers from laches. The resolution was passed on 28-4-1994. The writ petition has been filed on 26-1-1995 i,e, after about 9 months. No plausible explanation has been furnished for filing the writ petition at the belated stage nor in the circumstances any such explanation could be furnished. On this ground, the writ petition is also liable to dismissal. In support of this view, reference may be made to PLD 1993 Karachi 312 (c), wherein the following observation has been made:- "Laches operates as a bar in equity while law of limitation operates as a legal bar to the grant of remedy."
' In view of the circumstances discussed above, we find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith C.M. The above are reasons for our earlier short order. It may also be noted that we have dismissed in limine similar Writ Petition No, 5/95 on the same grounds.