' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent-Bank issued a public notice for auction of the truck in question on 17-7-2000. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondent-Bank. The bid of the petitioner was highest amounting to Rs,875,000 qua the truck in question bearing Registration No, PTR/0019. The petitioner deposited 1/4th to the bid money i,e, Rs,219,000 in terms and conditions of the auction held by the respondents in view of the public notice. The respondents did not hand over the truck in question to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondent is without lawful authority. He further urges that petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire amount in terms of the bid offered by the petitioner to the respondent. He further submits that petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount from the respondent-Bank with interest as the respondents did not intimate the petitioner to withdraw his aforesaid amount from the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel of the respondent-Bank submits that bid of the petitioner was not approved by the competent Authority.
In fact the bid of the petitioner was rejected by the competent Authority vide order, dated 19-7- 2000 and it was sufficient notice to the petitioner to withdraw his 1/4th amount deposited by him in terms of his offer to the respondent-Bank. He further submits that in report and parawise comments the respondents have specifically taken a stand in reply of para.5 that the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw his amount deposited by him as the bid of the petitioner was rejected by the competent Authority vide letter, dated 19-7-2000. He further submits that it is sufficient notice to the petitioner to withdraw the said amount but the petitioner himself did not withdraw the said amount from the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest alongwith the amount deposited by him to the respondent-Bank.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondent-Bank in terms of the auction notice issued by the respondent- Bank in the newspaper. The bid of the petitioner was highest amounting to Rs,875,000. The petitioner had deposited 25% of the bid amounting to Rs,219,000 according to the terms and conditions of auction. The bid of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on 19-7-2000. The respondent did not issue any letter to the petitioner qua the rejection of his bid as well as to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner to the respondent-Bank in terms of his offer. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 25-7-2000 which was fixed before this Court on 27-7-2000. The respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments and the respondents filed report and parawise comments on 19-8-2000 in which the respondents have taken a stand that bid of the petitioner was not approved and rejected by the competent Authority vide order, dated 19-7- 2000 and the petitioner was directed to withdraw the aforesaid amount deposited by him to the respondent-Bank. It is settled principle of law that mere participation in auction proceedings held by the respondents being highest bidder does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Munshi Muhammad v. Faizan-ul-Haq (1971 SCM R 533). It is also admitted fact that respondents rejected the bid of the petitioner on 19-7-2000 but respondent-Bank did not intimate the petitioner quo rejection of his bid as well as respondent-Bank failed to intimate the petitioner to withdraw his aforesaid amount. In this view of the matter, respondents are directed to return the amount of Rs,219,000 to the petitioner alongwith profit from 17-7-2000 to 19-8-2000 within a fortnight positively.
' With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.
C.M. No, 474 of 2002 ' Since the main writ petition has been disposed of this application has become infructuous.