' It is argued that as nobody had come forward to bid for collection of Octraoi for Municipal Committee, Jaranwala the petitioner offered a sum of Rs, one crore for seven months period, w,e,f, 1-12-1997 to 30-6-1998 and deposited a sum of Rs,17,00,000. This was done with the concurrence of Administrator, Local M.P.A. And M.N.A. The grievance now is that even charge was handed over to the petitioner but that was taken back after four months. It is added that after grant of the contract the respondents have lost right to repent and the action is illegal and mala fide. It is added that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the lapses of public functionaries. It is added that the lease was cancelled without show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner, therefore, the order is void. In this behalf reliance is placed on the judgments reported as Federation of Pakistan through the G.M.
(Personnel) Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore v. Mrs. Latif (PLD 1990 SC 90) and Chairman Selection Committee/Principal K.E. Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCMR 15).
2. On the other hand the learned Addl. A.-G. Argued that as per notification, dated 2nd of August, 1997 a Committee consisting of D.C., one M.P.A. One M.N.A. And Administrator of the local council concerned was to be formed for negotiations whereas in the present case no Committee was formed. The Administrator gave the contract with the occurrence of M.N.A. And M.P.A. And when this notification came to the notice of the D.C. He refused to proceed with the matter and cancelled the contract and refused to execute the agreement. It is added that the contract was given by unauthorised person, therefore, did not create any legal obligation in favour of the petitioner, which can be pressed into service through Constitutional petition. The Deputy Commissioner when came to know of the this proposal did not ratify the same. It is argued that until and unless the agreement was executed there was (sic) no enforceable contract came into force. In this behalf reliance is placed on the judgment reported as M/s. Muhammad Safdar & Co, through Muhammad Safdar Sole Proprietor of the Company, Okara v. The Province of the Punjab through Secretary L.G.
Of R.D.D. Government of the Punjab Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1996 Lah. 22).
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 argued that the petitioner remained incharge of the collection work from 3rd of December, 1997 to 15th of December, 1997 only.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments. The Administrator, M.P.A. And M.N.A. Had no authority to accept any offer from the petitioner and give the contract. The contract awarded by them was illegal and now if that order is allowed to continue it would amount to perpetrating illegality which is not possible. In this behalf reference can be made to the judgments reported as Nawab Sayed Raunaq Ali and others v. C.S.C. And others (PLD 1974 SC 106) and Nagina Cotton Mills Ltd v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others (1990 CLC 1337).
5. It is made clear that the Committee is not bound by illegal acts of its functionaries. The petitioner, if advised, may pursue his remedy against the Administrator and others who illegally awarded the contract.
' The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is dismissed in limine.