1. Since the case has been heard at quite some length as such with the concurrence of the parties it is disposed of as Pakka matter.
2. Facts briefly for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that an advertisement appeared in the National Papers for the auction of rights to collect goods exit tax for a periods of 10 months of Zila Council, Sialkot. The petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs.3,10,05,000 and auction proceedings accordingly were sent by Zila Council to the Minister for local Government for confirmation. The petitioner through his application dated 31-8-1995 requested the Zila Council for the issuance of work order so as to enable him to collect goods exit tax w.e.f. 1-9-1995. The request was not acceded to as such faced with this situation the petitioner repeated his request through another application dated 14-9-1995. In the meantime, the confirmation of the auction was accorded on 18-9-1995 and consequent thereto a written agreement was executed between the parties. Respondent Zila Council thereafter issued the impugned letter dated 19-9-1995 (Annexure "G") putting a condition upon the petitioner that the income collected by the staff of the Zila Council during the period starting from 1-9-1995 to 19-9-1995 would be deposited in his account who in turn was directed to pay the instalment for the entire month of September, 1995. Hence this Constitutional petition.
3. Argument has been advanced that the impugned condition imposed through Annexure G, dated 19-9-1995 is illegal and has got no sanction of law.
4. The lease would become operative from the execution of the agreement and the respondent cannot claim any money for 19 days for which there was no confirmation, it is argued.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the stance taken by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner started supervising the collection w.e.f. 1-9-1995 as the permission for the same was accorded to him on his application made on 31-8-1995.
6. I have considered the contentions. It is admitted and not denied that the confirmation of the auction was conveyed to the petitioner through Letter No.2048-49 dated 18-9-1995. The petitioner pursuant to this confirmation order deposited the requisite amount and formal agreement was executed as required under the law. Section 39 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provides:
39. Contract.--(1) All contracts made by or on behalf of a Local Council shall be--
(a) in writing and expressed to be made in the name of the local council;
(b) executed in such manner as may be prescribed and
(c) reported to the local council by the Chairman at the meeting next following the execution the contract.
(2) No contract executed otherwise than in conformity with the provision of the section shall be binding on the Local Council.
7. Similarly sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the Punjab Local Council Lease Rules, 1990 provides as under:
(5) A lease shall not become operative unless his lessee enters into an agreement with the Local Council.
8. A reference is also apt to sub-rule (10) of rule 16 of the Punjab Zila Council Goods Exit Tax which is couched in the following terms:
(10) The successful bidder shall execute a formal deed in favour of the Zila Council the cost of which shall be borne by him containing the terms and conditions of the lease before exercising rights thereunder.
9. The reading of the aforesaid provisions demonstrate that the execution of the formal agreement is necessary before any party is permitted under the law to embark upon the collection of goods exit tax. Simply because the supervision of the collection as alleged by the learned counsel for the respondent was given to the petitioner the same in these circumstances would not clothe the respondent Zila Council with any authority to demand payment from 1-9-1995 particularly so when the learned counsel for the petitioner has totally denied any such supervision. The stance of the petitioner that he was not granted any supervision gets further support from his subsequent application dated 14-9-1995 in which he repeated his earlier request made through application dated 31-8-1995 for the grant of work order. This application according to the comments submitted by the respondent was consigned to record on 21-9-1995 with the following remarks: