Briefly stated the facts are that as a result of proclamation for the auction of different works of Town Committee Kamir Sharif, District Sahiwal, in daily DIN, dated 20-5-2000, an auction took place on 20-5-2000 wherein the present petitioner participated and was declared a successful bidder in the sum of Rs.2,20,000. Accordingly his auction was approved and was directed vide notice, dated 20-5-2000 to deposit the amount, the detail of which is mentioned in the said notice. However, on 27-6-2000, the petitioner was informed through the Chief Officer, Town Committee Kamir District Sahiwal that his auction has been cancelled by the order of Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal. The petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said order and has filed the instant writ petition.
2. Notice to respondent No. 1 was issued who has filed its written reply to the writ petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:-- His contention is that as a result of auction conducted on 20-5-2000, the same was approved and as such a vested right has been created in his favour which could not be taken away without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. He further submits that as a result of instant writ petition the stay order was issued on 11-7-2000 and even then auction proceedings have been conducted on 12-7-2000 which is in violation of order of this Court. He further contends that vide notice, dated 20-5-2000 he was directed to deposit certain amount which if calculated comes to Rs.50,000, that as per terms and conditions of auction he had deposited an , earnest money of Rs.50,000 which wag available with respondent No. 1, that the amount required vide notice, dated 20-5-2000 comes to Rs.50,000 and as the said amount had already been deposited with respondent No.1 so the petitioner w& not liable to pay the said amount and he cannot be held responsible for the violation of notice, dated 20-5-2000. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal did not figure anywhere in the scheme of Punjab Local Council (Lease Rules), 1990, as such had no authority to cancel the lease agreement. He further contended that even as per Punjab Local Council (Lease Rules), 1990 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not appealable, as such he was not left with any alternate remedy but to file the instant writ petition.
5. Conversely, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted/rebutted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1. In support of his contentions he submitted that earnest money cannot be adjusted towards the amount as demanded vide notice, dated 20-5-2000, as the said earnest money has to be refunded after the expiry of the lease period as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Punjab Local Council (Lease Rules), 1990. He further contended that no vested right has been created in favour of the petitioner, as the lease becomes operative only after the lease holder enters into an agreement with the Local Council as stipulated in sub-clause (5) of Rule 7 of Rules (ibid), which has not so far been complied with, that even otherwise the order, dated 27-6-2000 is appealable under section 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1990. He further contended that at present another contender has offered a sum of Rs.9,10,000 for the same contract which has been leased out in favour of the petitioner for Rs.2,20,000, that this vast difference in the lease amount as well as the offer made by a prospective lease holder is itself sufficient to put the lease into fresh auction, so the maximum amount be extracted for the welfare of the activities of the Town Committee, Kamir Sharif, District Sahiwal.
6. Be that as it may, leaving the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, aside, it is admitted fact that another contender of the contract has offered his services for a sum of Rs.9,10,000 and it is further stated by learned counsel for respondent No. l that still there is another person who has offered to accept the lease for the sum of Rs.1 million. At present the lease has been auctioned for a petty amount of Rs.2,20,000. These facts itself are sufficient to hold that auction proceedings are tainted with mala fide and should be cancelled. As per auction proceedings, dated 12-7-2000 one Faqir Muhammad has offered a sum of Rs.9,10,000 and the Chief Officer has recommended for acceptance of his bid, so the reserve price in the instant case will be Rs.9,10,000. Accordingly auction proceedings, dated 20-5-2000 are set aside and it is ordered that fresh auction proceedings be held in accordance with land same should be conducted within a fortnight from today.
7. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the amount of earnest money of the parties, shall be refunded.
8. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.