' Precise grievance of the petitioner is that through publication published in the "Daily Nawa-i- Waqt" respondent No,1 called tenders regarding different works relating to roads, maintenance of roads from the approved contractors of the District Council. Petitioner being registered contractor with the local council in view of the proclamation issued in the "Daily Nawa-i-Waqt", dated 9-8- 1996 submitted call deposit of 2% in the scheduled bank of Rs,10,000 each and deposited the same through cheques in the Allied Bank Ltd., Mian Channun on 18-8-1996.
2. Parawise comments submitted by the respondents disclosed that the petitioner is restrained from participating in the auction proceedings because he had not deposited the amount of Rs,25 for each tender in view of Rule 47(4) of the Punjab Local Councils (Works) Rules, 1981. Learned counsel has brought the attention of this Court to the advertisement primarily issued in the "Daily Nawa-i-Waqt" where the parties were asked to deposit 2% of the call deposit and then apply for the tender. According to the statement of the legal representative of respondents 83 contractors deposited Rs,25 of their each tender but the petitioner did not deposit the same and the work has been allotted to these contractors.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the entrustment of work to these contractors a sanction of Department is necessary, therefore, the statement of the legal representative of respondents is not correct. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure B, this is an application from the petitioner for issuance of tender. This application is, dated 28-8-1996 showing:
(i) 44 Metal Road Mian Channun CDR No,591884/Rs,10,000 Jandiali Road 51/152
(ii) 50 Metal road 75-A/15-L CDR No,591885/Rs,10,000
(iii) 121 Metal road Pakki Bhani 102/ CDR No,591885/Rs,10,000 15 -L
(iv) 92 Special construction Kacha CDR No,591887/Rs,10,000 Khooh, Vehari Road to 105/15-L This application is signed by the petitioner. But on Court question the representative on behalf of respondents has failed to show any other application submitted to them. Learned A.A.-G. Also supports that there is violation of the Rule 47(4).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. I am afraid the mala fides of the respondents is apparent. In the proclamation issued in the newspaper, they have speaking directed the parties to deposit 2% of the total money call deposit and then request for the tenders, the deposits at call have been submitted by the petitioner and there is no dispute about the same. He has submitted an application that he be issued the tender of the call deposits on 20- 8-1996 and it is not convincing that how from the submission of the application he avoided the deposit of Rs,100 when he had already deposited Rs,40,000 in the bank, therefore, I accept this writ petition and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner the tender of the works for which he has submitted the call deposit.