' This case is being disposed of as a pacca case.
2. Brief facts of the instant writ petition are that respondent No,2 (Town Committee, Daira Din Panah) auctioned lease for collection of toll tax for the year 1996-97 on 13-5-1996. The petitioner offered the highest bid, hammer fell on Rs,17 lacs. He was informed for success of his bid by respondent No,2 through a Letter No,97 dated 14-5-1996. The petitioner deposited Rs,1 lac as earnest money and he had to deposit Rs,1/10th of the total bid plus 2% security as per law envisaged in rule 7 of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990. The petitioner became aggrieved by a letter issued by the Administrator, Town Committee, Daira Din Panah (respondent No,2) directing the petitioner to deposit 1/10th the total bid plus 2% as security and one instalment of Rs,1,46,045 and gave an application to the Administrator, Town Committee on 15-5-1996 that he has to deposit 1/10th of the total bid and 2% as security which comes to the tune of Rs,2,10,120, he also submitted in his application that he has already deposited Rs,1 lac as earnest money. He further requested for orders of deposit of the aforesaid amount. So far as the deposit of advance instalment is concerned he intimated to the administrator, Town Committee that he will deposit the same on 30-6-1996 as per rules and regulations of the leases.
3. Office staff of the Town Committee recommended for acceptance of the application but the Administrator, Town Committee refused to accept the same and insisted to deposit one instalment in violation of the rules and regulations against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Muzaffargarh (respondent No,4) who vide order dated 30-6-1996 accepted the appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit payment in the office of the appellate authority on 1-7-1996 at 9 a.m. Sharp and also directed that the cheque shall be got verified by the Bank before the next financial year. According to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner he complied with the order passed by the appellate authority on the same day and possession of the lease was given to him.
4. Respondent No,5 (laved Mahmood and Company) gave an application to the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Lahore (Respondent No,1) who vide order dated 25-7-1996 set aside the order of the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development dated 30-6-1996 and directed to handover possession to the respondent No,5 with the direction that necessary dues could be recovered according to the terms and conditions of agreement deed executed with M/s. Javaid Mahmood and Company. Against this order the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the basis that the order is without jurisdiction as there is no provision of second appeal under the rules and regulations regulating the leases. The order of the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development being final could not be questioned further. This order was passed behind the back of the petitioner and he was successful bidder in the first auction.
Moreover, the order of the Administrator, Town Committee being void shall not be made operative upon the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,5 submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no vested right to question the action of the Administrator, Town Committee respondent No,
2. He has placed reliance on Messrs Muhammad Safdar & Company v. The Province of the Punjab PLD 1996 Lahore 22. He has further asserted that the contractual obligation cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction and that the question of fact cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction and that the re-auction was never challenged by the petitioner. The agreement was already executed by respondent No,5 on 26-9-1996 and the appeal was filed on 27-6-1996 which was accepted on 30-6-1996 and the respondent was never made a party. The petitioner remained obdurate for non-payment of the amount and, therefore, the lease was rightly cancelled despite notices issued by the Town Committee.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The procedure of auction is laid down in the Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990. Rule 7 being relevant for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-- "7. Payment of dues.--(1) The person whose bid is accepted by the Local Council shall deposit a sum equal to one-tenth of the amount of his bid within three days of the acceptance of the bid.
(2) The decision of the house shall be communicated to the bidder on the same day in writing through special messenger and where this is not possible through registered post.
(3) The highest bidder shall also be informed about the date of the meeting of the Local Council fixed for considering the bid.
(4) The remaining 90% amount of the bid shall be paid by the lessee to the Local Council in equal monthly instalments before the start of the month of which the instalment is due: Provided that the number of instalments shall be so fixed that the last instalment is paid one month before the 1st day of the last month of the contract of lease.
(5) A lease shall not become operative unless the lessee enters into an agreement with the Local Council.
(6) . ......
7. The initial order of the Administrator. Town Committee or deposit of one instalment is completely without lawful authority and in violation of the rules regulating the leases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to deposit the required amount within the stipulated period. The leases rules also provide a remedy of appeal. Therefore, any order passed by the Chairman, Town Committee under these rules is appealable before the assistant Director Local Government and Rural Development Department concerned.
Sub-rule (6) of rule 8 of the Local Councils (Lease) Rules provides that the orders passed in an appeal shall be final and binding and there shall be no second appeal under these rules.
8. The intention of the legislature is very clear. So far as the remedy of appeal is concerned, how the Secretary, Local Government has assumed the jurisdiction to sit over a judgment passed by the competent Authority when no second appeal is provided under the law. As far as the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent No,5 in respect of the jurisdiction is concerned writ jurisdiction is provided to correct the error of jurisdiction of any subordinate authority. They cannot set at naught anything according to their whims and choices. Any authority sitting in appeal, review or revision is hound by the provisions of law, therefore, this C4iurt has got jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned orders.
9. Therefore, the order dated 16-5-1996 as well as cancellation order dated 9-6-1996 and order passed by the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Lahore dated 25-7-1996 and all subsequent actions being passed thereto are without lawful authority and jurisdiction, and are hereby set aside.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.