This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is instituted by the petitioners against the respondents on the ground that they are the auction purchaser of Ittehad Chemicals after giving highest bid in a public auction. The auctioned upit was thereafter transferred to the petitioners by the Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan .i,e, respondent No,5. The respondents have now started harassing the petitioners on the ground that the transaction in question was not transparent and that the public exchequer was deprived of a colossal amount due to some under-hand deal between the functionaries of the Govt. and the petitioners.
2. It is contended that the aforesaid allegations are totally false and ill-founded because the transaction in dispute was solemnized after a public auction was conducted in accordance with the prevalent procedure as envisaged by the Transfer of Managed Establishments Order, 1978. The deal in question was not collusive or oblique. It was finalized and 80% of the auction price was paid and the respondents started harassing the petitioners allegedly with ulterior motive.
The transfer of the unit in favour of the petitioners was alleged to be final, therefore, an agreement between the petitioners and the Federal Government clothed the petitioners with the vested rights as enshrined under Articles 4, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and other relevant law. The transaction in question had become a past and closed matter and was not liable to be reopened after the petitioners had acquired bona fide rights in the unit in question under the agreement which ought to be honoured by the Federal Government as per law and the Constitution. However, the petitioners were blamed to have acted with soiled hands and on this flimsy plea their case was referred to the Ehtesab Cell under the Ehtesab Act, 1997. Since the reference to Ehtesab Cell was allegedly mala fide, therefore, a prayer was made that respondents be restrained to take any adverse action against the petitioners or their business; that respondents be directed to produce record of criminal case or investigation, if any, going on against the petitioners; that respondent No,2 be restrained from broadcasting any programme adverse to the reputation and business of the petitioners through electronic media; that the respondents and their functionaries be restrained to arrest or detain the petitioner No,1 in any matter.
4. The writ petition was resisted on the ground that no adverse action was taken and that only inquiry was directed to be held into the allegations levelled against the petitioners whereby it was alleged that they had used under-hand method to get the Ittehad Chemical unit through an auction after having collusion with the concerned officials. In this respect it was pointed out that a reference was made to the Ehtesab Cell pointing out that the unit in public sector was sold to the petitioners at a throwaway price through foul play. It was pointed out in the comments offered by the respondents that the date for auction of Ittehad Chemical was officially fixed as 30-10-1994.
However, the officers and the members of the then privatization Commission had intentionally delayed the acceptance of a 3rd level bid of Rs,50 per share offered by Farooq Zaman. However, re-auction had taken place on 30-6-1995 at Lahore in which the offer of the petitioners at Rs,20.10 per share was scandalously accepted ignoring that on 30.10.1994 the 3rd level bid was of Rs,50 per share. In that way the petitioners bid for a total sum of Rs,452.250 million (M) was accepted as compared to a total considerable price of Rs,1125.00 (M), thereby causing a loss of Rs,672.75 Million.
The net worth of Ittehad Chemical Ltd. was wrongly assessed by the Privatization Commission which resulted into a irreversible loss of Rs,12.566(M). In giving undue benefit to the petitioners the Privatization Commission failed to scrutinize the Bank Guarantee worth of Rs,238.182(M) furnished by Abdul Jabbar through Allied Bank Jodia Bazar Branch.
5. Lastly it was contended that following bids were offered in the open auction on 30-10-1994 by the parties as stated against each bid:-
(1) ICL Employees Management GroupRs,79.00 per (2)Ittehad Employees Group share Rs,78.00-do- (3)M/s Farooq Zaman Group Rs .50 .00 -do (4)Mr. Muhammad Saleem Rs,40.00 - do (5)Mr. Tariq Saigal Rs,28.00 -do-
6. As against -- the above quotations, the auction was postponed for no ostensible reason and the unit was re-auctioned on a subsequent date viz 30-6-1995 for an amount of Rs,20.10 per share, which resulted into a colossal loss to the national exchequer, as detailed above.
7. In view of the above facts, the Government have decided to make a reference to the Ehtesab Cell to find out the facts through an independent inquiry. Since all'the actions of respondents were allegedly within the parameter of law, therefore, the writ petition was allegedly mis-conceived.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that no final action is yet initiated against the petitioners either to cancel the agreement or to make any interference with the working of the impugned unit. The comments offered by the respondents prima facie give a vivid story of the auction proceedings culminating into final disposal of Ittehad Chemical through a belated auction. The respondent No,2 has only forwarded the case to respondent No,3 for inquiry and investigation into the allegation against the petitioners and irregularities committed during the auction proceedings of the impugned unit. The investigation in such like cases cannot be stayed particularly when the colossal loss to the national exchequer is claimed through acclaimed underhand tactics. The Ehtesab Cell has legal power to inquire into such matters under the Ehtesab Act, 1997 and no interference at this stage would be called for in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The investigating agency should have free hand to make independent and impartial inquiry into the aforementioned facts and counter-allegations in order to come to a conclusion as to where lies that fault, if any. Reference to 1994 SCM R 2142 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) will obviate the proposition.
9. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for issuance of writ as the plea claimed appears to be pre-mature. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that investigation shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law by the relevant agency.