' RANA BHAGAWANDAS, J.---Petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder in the auction for the collection of Lorry Adda Fee for the period effective from 1-7-1996 to 30-6-1997. His highest bid of Rs,17,00,000 for the award of contract advertised by the Municipal Committee, Pattoki, District, Kasur was accepted. Under the terms of the contract, he had deposited security amount of Rs,1,00,000 with the Municipal Committee. Subsequently, however, he took a somersault and, instead of depositing the balance amount of Rs,16,00,000 as required by relevant rules and the terms of the contract, requested for cancellation of his bid and refund of his security deposit on the premise that he had simply participated in the auction as a "dummy bidder" at the instance of Chief Officer of the Municipal Committee. His request was, however, turned down and the Administrator, Municipal Committee passed an order, dated 23-10-1996 forfeiting the security amount. Petitioner preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development as Appellate Authority. However, the Municipal Committee did not release the amount of security deposit obliging the petitioner to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court through a writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to implement the order of respondent-Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development and to return the security deposit of Rs,1,00,000 to him. Petition was, however, dismissed by learned Judge in Chambers vide judgment, dated 28-5-1999, which has been impugned in this petition for leave to appeal.
2. At the hearing Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner being a simple and rustic villager was duped into taking part in the auction by the Municipal Committee at the asking of the Chief Officer in order to attract higher bid for the award of the contract. He heavily relied upon the order passed by the Appellate Authority in support of his contention that it was at the instance of the Chief Officer that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and deposited the security deposit as aforesaid.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and analysed the conduct of the petitioner. In our view, the petitioner does not appear to be as simple and innocent as pretended. He had consciously participated in the auction proceedings and was fully aware of the consequences of the hammer blow. In case his plea that he acted at the instance of the Chief Officer in order to attract higher bid in favour of the Municipal Committee is accepted, his remedy, if any, may lie against the Chief Officer for reimbursement of the loss. Conversely, if he joined hands with the Chief Officer with unclean hands, he would not be entitled to the discretionary relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Since the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the security amount for his eligibility to take part in the auction, he should thank himself for the consequences flowing from his act of falling back on his solemn commitment. In law he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the Court in getting an illegal and manipulated order implemented through writ, which would only tend to perpetuate a wrong and acting in aid of injustice. Learned Judge in Chambers has rightly referred to Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) and Airport Support Service v. Airport Manager (1998 SCM R 2268) in support of his view declining to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction in the matter. Reference may also be made to Begum Shams-un-Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi (PLD 1982 SC 413) and Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) (PLD 1991 SC 691).
4. In view of what has been discussed above, no ground for grant of leave is made out. Resultantly, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.