' The Zila Council, Gujrat, by a public notice sought to lease out its rights for the year 1997-98 for the collection of Goods Exit Tax which could not materialise as the auction failed on 16-6-1997. The second attempt by the Zila Council also failed on 8-7-1997. The auction could not be held on 22-7- 1997 for the 3rd time. A fresh public notice dated 15-8-1997 through the Press was given for holding the auction on 21-8-1997. In the auction so held under the supervision of a Sub-Committee constituted by the Administrator, Zila Council, for the purpose, the highest bid of Rs,2,79,00,000 of the petitioner was recommended for its acceptance for the period from 22-8-1997 to 30-6-1998. In a letter dated 22-8-1997 from the Chief Officer of the Zila Council, the'petitioner was informed that his highest bid of Rs,2,79,00,000 had been approved by the Auction Sub-Committee and he was asked to deposit 17% of the bid money. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs,50,00,000 in favour of the Zila Council.
2. In his letter dated 22-8-1997, the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat/Administrator of the Zila Council, sought the advice of the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, as to whether the departmental collection should be made or the auction bid of the petitioner be accepted. The Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, vide his impugned order dated 28-8-1997 after consideration of the case directed the Administrator to re-auction the collection of Goods Exit Tax.
3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a direction to the Zila Council to execute the lease agreement forthwith which was accepted by my judgment dated 10-9-1997. The Zila Council took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.S.L.A. 1203-L of 1997 in which the operation of the judgment dated 10-9-1997 passed by this Court was suspended. Resultantly the re-auction was held and confirmed in favour of respondent No,4 for a sum of Rs,52,00,000 for the period from 15- 10-1997 to 30-6-1998. The. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 16-10-1997 passed in Civil Appeal No, 1230 of ' 997 set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties but with the permission to the petitioner to implead the Commissioner by an amendment of the writ petition. The petitioner filed the amended writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is prepared to the lease for the collection of the Goods Exit Tax at the amount for which the auction has been confirmed in favour of respondent No,4 which is much higher than that which was earlier offered by the petitioner himself. In the alternative, it was further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had no objection if the tax collection was re-auctioned. It was stated that the Commissioner of a Division had not been delegated any power so as to interfere with the matters of auctions in favour of the petitioner under any law. The learned counsel submitted that under Rule 16(1) (2) of the Punjab Zila Councils (Goods Exit Tax) Rules, 1990, the confirmation of an auction was the exclusive function of a Zila Council itself which was not subject to any approval or disapproved by any other authority. He relied on the case of Ittehad & Co. v. The Commissioner.
Faisalabad and 3 others (PLD 1994'Lahore 29) in support of his contention that even the Provincial Government could suspend execution of a resolution of a local council but not the resolution itself and that the power to quash the proceedings of a local council had not been delegated to the Commissioner. It was further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the re- auction of the collection of Goods Exit Tax in favour of respondent No,4 was a nullity in the eye of law despite the same for a higher amount.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under section 26-A
(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, all the powers and functions of the local council after their dissolution were to be exercised by the Administrators appointed by the Provincial Government. He further stated that properties of the local councils stood vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of section 156 of the said Ordinance. It was further argued that by virtue of a notification dated 6-2-1980 under section 170 of the said Ordinance, a Commissioner of a Division has been delegated with the powers of the Government under clauses (b) and (c) of section 156 thereof. The Commissioner was, therefore, empowered to suspend execution or implementation of any order passed by the Administrator of a Zila Council and could also issue directions to prohibit from doing an act which the Administrator was otherwise authorised if the same was considered to be ,prejudicial to public interest. The learned counsel submitted that the operation of the judgment dated 10-9-1997 passed by this Court was suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 24-9-1997.
Consequently, the re-auction for eight months was held and confirmed in favour of respondent No,4 being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs, 3, 52,00,000 which amount was much higher than that offered by the petitioner at the previous auction. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person within the, meaning of law and that even otherwise the earlier public notice dated 15-8-1997 for public auction being less than seven hours could not give rise to any valid auction.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned, counsel for the parties. I find 'that 'Notification No, SOL-1=18/79, dated 6-2-1980 was issued by the Government of the Punjab, in exercise of powers under section 170 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It was under the said notification that the Government powers under clauses (b) and (c)' of section 156; under sections 157 and 158 of the said' Ordinance were delegated to the Commissioners of respective Divisions in the case of the Municipal ~ Corporations and Zila Councils. The-Commissioner is now empowered to suspend the execution of an order made by a Zila Council or proposed to be made by or on behalf of a Zila Council if not in conformity with law or is in any way against public, interest. A reference may be made to the case of Commissioner of Gaya Municipality and others v. The State of Bihar and others (AIR 1975 Patna 332. Similarly, under section 157, the Commissioner may direct a Zila Council or any person or authority responsible thereto to take such action as may be' necessary for carrying out the purpose-of Ordinance. He may also cause an inquiry to be made- into the affairs of a Zila- Council under section 158 of the Ordinance. In the present case, the lease for the collection of the Goods Exit Tax was proposed to be granted in favour of the petitioner at a very low amount and the Zila Council would have suffered financial loss if the same was accepted.
The Commissioner B was, therefore, justified to turn down the recommendations of the Auction SubCominittee and the Administrator and to direct its re-auction in the public interest. In the case of Abdul Hameed v. Deputy Commission Administrator, Zila Council Mandi Bahauddin and 4 others (1997 CLC 540), a learned Division 'Bench of this Court upheld an order of the Chief Minister whereby the lease granted at a very low amount had been cancelled.In another case of Javaid Iqbal Abbasi & Company v. Province of Punjab and 6 others (1996 SCMR 1433), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of putting the contract for collection of Goods Exit Tax to auction was to augment the revenue which was to be used for public purposes. It was further observed that 'the fact that on re-auction of the lease rights respondent No, 7 offered a sum of over rupees four crores for the lease period of only 7 months as against the appellants' bid of Rs,2, 47,00,000 for a lease period of 12 months was enough to show that the order of re-auction in the case was eminently a just and proper order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber." The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts of this case. No, exception can be taken to the public auction held by the Zila Council subsequently whereby respondent No,4 was granted the lease rights for eight months for a much higher amount than that offered by the petitioner for 10 months. The case of Ittehad & Co. (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference of this Court in the exercise of its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction particularly on account of the supervening events.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, or with the reauction proceedings of the Zila Council, Gujrat, as confirmed in favour of respondent No,4. This writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.