Instant writ petition has been directed against the order dated 15-6-2000 whereby the Administrator, Town Committee Tolamba has informed the petitioner that lease agreement executed in his favour has been cancelled by the order of Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal/respondent No. l and fresh auction shall be held on 26-6-2000.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of proclamation in daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Multan dated 13-5-2000 auction took place on 23-5-2000 regarding the entry fee. Various persons participated in the said auction including Sh. Shahnawaz son of Shahbuddin/respondent No.5. However, the auction was finally ended in favour of the present petitioner in the sum of Rs.8,80,000. The petitioner thereafter entered into an agreement with the Town Committee on 30-5-2000 and on the same day also deposited requisite amount of Rs.14,400. Respondent No.5 moved an application that he was ready to acquire the said lease rights for a sum of Rs.930,000 and on that said application the Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal/respondent No. 1 directed that earlier auction dated 23-5-2000 be cancelled and fresh auction be held with a reserve price of Rs.9,30,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage has offered that his client is ready to pay a sum of Rs.960,000 and the order of auction be maintained.
4. It is evident from the perusal of Punjab Local Council (Lease Rules), 1990 that a procedure for conducting auction and thereafter its cancellation has been provided therein. It is evident from sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the said Rules that a lease become operative only when an agreement is executed with the local council. In the instant case the said agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and local council, as is evident from agreement dated 30-5-2000. There is no doubt that lease can be cancelled but the grounds of cancellation as enumerated in Rule 8 of Punjab Local Council (Lease Rules), 1990 are to be present. In the instant case no such ground is available and only re-auction has been ordered simply, as respondent No.5 has offered a higher sum than the one for which it has already been auctioned in favour of the petitioner. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue there would be no end of offer and acceptance and every prospective bidder shall come with a fresh offer to dislodge the previous person who has succeeded in the auction.
5. In the instant case it is noteworthy that son of respondent No.5 participated in the auction and offered a sum of Rs.875,000 and could not succeed in getting the lease as the present petitioner offered a sum of Rs.8,80,000 and as such was declared a successful bidder. Now just to dislodge the present petitioner he has come up with a new offer of Rs.9,30,000 on 29-5-2000 whereas auction proceedings concluded on 23-5-2000. Thus, application of respondent No.5 has been moved with mala fide intention just to dislodge the present petitioner.
6. Be that as it .May, since the present petitioner has shown his willingness to pay even Rs.5,000 more which has been offered by respondent No.5 order of cancellation of auction in favour of the petitioner is set aside and original order of auction in favour of petitioner is now confirmed. The petitioner shall, however, pay the difference of Rs.,60,000 with the respondents in accordance with the rules.
7. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of