' This is an application for review of the order of this Court, dated 24-10-1993. The learned counsel of the applicant submits that respondent No,1 received an intimation from the office of the Advocate- General that the concerned authority be directed to see the Advocate-General alongwith the record on 24-10-1993. The Legal Advisor of the District Council alongwith the concerned authority and relevant record arrived in the High Court on the abovementioned date at about 12-00 Noon so as to contact the Advocate-General in order to brief him with the facts of the case and to inform him that District Council have decided to engage a separate counsel for defending the writ petition. The writ petition has been disposed of on miscellaneous application filed by the original petitioner in the main writ petition. This Court also directed the respondents for the release of the bank guarantee which was furnished by the original petitioner in favour of the respondent No,l.
2. The learned counsel of the applicant submits that the matter was disposed of on the application filed by the original petitioner. The notice was not received by the applicant/respondent well in time and the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, therefore, the impugned order, in the interest of justice, to be reviewed.
3. The learned counsel of the original petitioner Mr. Ali Ahmad Awan, Advocate submits that original petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1993 which was handed over to the Additional Advocate- General who was directed to appear after obtaining instructions from the respondents vide order, dated 19-10-1993 and the impugned order was passed in the presence of the Additional Advocate- General. The petitioner/respondent in the main writ petition has not brought the case within the parameter of Order 47, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. It is admitted fact that writ petition was disposed of on the application filed by the original petitioner although the application was handed over to the Advocate-General but the respondents had taken the stand that they did not receive the notice well in time. The order, dated 24-10-1993 did not reveal that the representative of the respondents was present in the Court on the said date.
In this view of the matter, I accept this review petitioner and recall the order, dated 24-10-1993. With the consent of the learned counsel of the parties, the main writ petition is decided on merits.
Main case ' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the order of the Commissioner, dated 13-7-1992 through this Constitutional petition. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondents for collection of tax on the transfer of immovable property for the year 1992-93 i,e, from 1-7-1992 up to 30-6-1993. The bid of the petitioner was highest amounting to Rs,2,45,00,000 which was accepted by the Chairman and approved by the full house of District Council vide Resolution No,3. An agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Intimation was also sent to the petitioner.
Messrs Islam & Company filed an application before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division that auction was not held by the respondents in accordance with law and Islam & Company had given offer that Islam & Company was ready to execute the contract with the respondents 10% over and above the highest bid given by the petitioner before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, accepted the application of the Islam & Company vide order, dated 30-6- 1992. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,6161 of 1992 against the order of the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, which was accepted by this Court vide order, dated 6-7-1992 and remanded the case to the Commissioner to .Decide afresh after hearing to all the concerned, in accordance with law. The Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, after remand accepted the application of Islam & Company vide order, dated 13-7-1992, hence this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Commissioner has no authority under the law to take the cognizance of the matter on the application filed by Islam & Company by virtue of sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He further submits that Commissioner was not delegated the powers to take the cognizance in the matter under the aforesaid provisions of law by the competent Authority. He further submits that petitioner was allowed to collect the impugned tax under the directions of this Court. He further submits that period of the contract has been elapsed, therefore, writ petition has become infructuous. He further submits that Islam & Company had also withdrawn its entire amount from the respondents on 12- 12-1992. He further submits that Commissioner has passed the order without applying his independent mind.
7. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that contract was not awarded by the respondents in terms of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, therefore, the Commissioner was justified to take the cognizance of the matter. He further submits that competent Authority had delegated powers to the Commissioner in the year 1980. The learned Additional Advocate-General also supported the learned counsel of the District Council.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and' perused the record myself.
9. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order qua the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "It is observed that the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 provide at rule 4 that a public notice of at least 7 days before the date fixed for auction shall be given by the Local Council. In the present case, this rule has been violated and only 5 days' notice was given. The Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provides for suspension of a resolution passed by the Local Council and the said power has been delegated in the case of Zila Councils to the Divisional Commissioners vide Notification No,DSR-27/80 of 13-8-1980. This remedy was not available since the Zila Council did not send copy of the proceedings to the Commissioner until 6-7-1992. As such, the only remedy available was under section 156(c) and section 157. The critical element of determining whether exercise of powers under section 156(c) is called for in this case is the public interest. As already stated, the award of contract was also suffering from material procedural infirmities since the contract was given for a rate of tax which had not yet been approved and the notice was also deficient in view of the Lease Rules."
' The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the auction was held by the respondents in violation of the Rules, 1990, therefore, contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the auction was held in accordance with law is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the present case the auction was held in violation of rule 4(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 as the period for holding the auction at least 7 days in terms of the aforesaid Rules of the Punjab Local Councils 13 (Lease) Rules, 1990 was not given, therefore, the auction proceedings were held in violation of the mandatory provisions of aforesaid rules. The aforesaid rules were interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Hameed's case 1997 CLC 540 and laid down the following principle:-- "The advertisement was made in the newspaper on 17-11-1995 and auction was allegedly held on 23-11-1995. It was provided in the Rules that the auction shall not be held before seven days after the publication of notice in the newspaper whereas it was held on 6th day, therefore, the holding of auction even if it is assumed the same was held as alleged on the said date, was an act which was ab initio, void."
' In the present case, the auction was held just after 5 days as is evident from the auction notice which was published in Press on 12-5-1992 and the auction was held on 17-5-1992. It was settled proposition of law that when the basic order is without lawful authority, the superstructure shall fall on the ground automatically. I am fortified by the following judgments : -- ' Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 104 and Crescent Sugar Mills' case PLD 1982 Lah.
1.
' Similarly, the second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that competent Authority has not delegated powers to the Commissioner, has no force. The competent Authority has delegated powers to the Divisional Commissioner vide Notification No,DSR-27/80, dated 13-8-1980.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the impugned order is valid in the eye of law. Since the petitioner was awarded a contract under the order of this Court, this Court has ample powers to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the writ petition as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court in the case of Nasir Jamal v.
Zubeida Begum 1990 CLC 1069. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay 10% more over and above the auction price to the respondents within one month to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.