CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents issued public notice for auction of ordinary sand block known as "Meerowal" Tehsil Ferozewala. The auction was held on 4.9.2002. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondents. The bid of the petitioner was highest amounting to Rs. 47,000/-. The petitioner according to the terms and conditions of auction proceedings, deposited 1/4th amount of the bid money. The respondents accepted the bid of the petitioner on 12.9.2002 and work order was also issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on 12.9.2002. The lease period according to the public notice and agreement, was fixed for a period of two years i.e.. 16.9.2002 to 15.9.2004. M/s. Mubarik Abbas Shaukat and Ch. Jawad Azhar, who did not participate in the auction proceedings and were also not registered firm, submitted an application before respondent No. 2 to secure the said block for consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. Respondent No. 2 dismissed the application of the aforesaid firm vide order dated 3.10.2002. The aforesaid M/s. Mubarik Abbas Shaukat and Ch. Jawad Azhar being aggrieved filed revision petition before respondent No. I, who accepted the revision petition and cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner which was granted to the petitioner in accordance with law and directed the licensing authority to re-auction the area. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned public notice is without lawful authority and the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1 without notice to the petitioner.
He further submits that the contract was completed and .Work order was also issued to the petitioner by the respondents in accordance with law. The petitioner had invested the huge amount on the project, therefore, the petitioner had accrued vested right, hence the respondent No. 1 has no lawful authority to cancel the lease of the petitioner. He further urges that action of the respondents is in violation of the Rule 199 and in violation of the law laid down by the Superior Court. In support of his contention he relied upon "Mahmooda Begum Vs. District Magistrate, Sialkot and 2 others" (PLD 1991 Lahore 230).
3. The learned Addl. Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the auction was held by the respondents in violation of the said Rule 198. He further submits that substantial justice has been done, therefore, the impugned order is valid and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. The ordinary sand block Meerowal was put to auction on 4.9.2002, that only two interested persons participated and bidded for the block, that bid of the petitioner was highest amounting to Rs. 47,000/-, who had deposited 1/4th amount at the time of auction, that the bid was accepted by respondent No. 2 on 12.9.2002, that the acceptance letter was also issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on (2.9.2002, that respondents Nos.4 and 5 offered Rs.
70,000/- alongwith an application to the Deputy Director to secure the said block, that offer was rejected by the licensing authority and intimation letter was sent to respondents Nos.4 and 5 and to this effect on 16.9.2002. The respondents issued work order to the petitioner on 16.9.2002.
Respondents Nos.4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of respondents vide order dated 3.10.2002 with the following observations:-- "There is no provision of post auction in Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002."
Respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed revision petition before respondent No. 1 which was accepted vide impugned order. The block in question was not advertised through the press in terms of Rule 198 of Punjab Milling Concession Rules, 2002 as is evident from the public notice. The corrigendum was published by the respondents qua block in question on 24.8.2002, wherein block in question was included in the list of block for auction to be held on 4.9.2002. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxta-position, then the block in question was auctioned in violation of the Rule 198 of Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 on the ground that 15 days were required for publication before the auction of block in question on 4.9.2002 which was not provided as observed in the impugned order.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances, respondent No. 1 accepted the appeal in the following terms:-- "I have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is evident from the record that the licensing authority issued letter showing the list of vacant blocks to Director General, Public Relations in the press, but the name of the block Megrowal was not published on 13.8.2002 in the newspaper. The block of Meerowal was published in the addendum through press on 24.8.2002. The block was, therefore, auctioned on 4.9.2002. The period of 15 days before auction which is a necessary requirement has not been fulfilled as is also conceded by the licensing authority. Thus Rule 198 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 was violated in view of this, petition is accepted and Licensing Authority is directed to cancel the mining lease, take over the possession and re-auction the area/block in the forthcoming auction after due advertisement in the press. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly."
6. It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on findings in place of findings of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the D.B. Of this Court and by the Hlonble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- "Board of Intermediate Vs. M. Mussadaq Na seem" (PLD 1973 Lahore 600).
"Eyed Azmat A.I Vs. Chief Settlement and others" (PLD 1964 S.C. 260).
It is admitted fact that block in question was auctioned by the licensing authority in violation of the aforesaid rule as notice for auction was issued by the respondents in violation of the aforesaid Rule, i.e. Clear 15 days was not given which was mandatory requirement under the law meaning thereby the period prescribed in the said rule that notice must be published for 15 days before the date of auction. As mentioned above, the auction proceeding was held in violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 198 of Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, therefore, the impugned order of respondent No. 1 is in accordance with dictum laid down by the D.B. Of this Court in Abdul Hameed's case (1997 C.L.C. 547). The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that respondents Nos.4 and 5 have no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings, has no force as per principle laid down by the Superior Courts being a matter regarding public money and public welfare. It is settled proposition of law that Courts had to protect the interest of the tax-payers as well as the public exchequers notwithstanding follies of illogical and sometime even casual attitude of the custodian of public exchequer as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Province of the Punjab and 3 others Vs. Muhammad Dawood Khan Tarie (1993 S.C.M.R.
508). Reference in this regard can be made in "Javed Iqbal Abbasi & Co. Vs. Province of Punjab"
(1996 S.C.M.R. 1433). It is also settled proposition of law National Interest must take precedent over private interest and individual rights as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Saif-Ullah's case (PLD 1989 S.C. 166). It is also settled proposition of law that authorities are bound to ensure that auction proceedings were transparent and procured price fairly closer to market value. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- "Abdullah and two others Vs. I.G. Frontier Post" (1997 SCMR 1833).
"Shaukat A.I Vs. Government of Pakistan" (PLD 1997 S.C. 342).
It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character, he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. In arriving to this conclusion, ! Am fortified by the following judgments:- "Nawab Syed Raunaq A.I Vs. Chief Settlement Committee" (PLD 1973 S.C. 236).
"Rana Muhammad. Arshad Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Revenue)" (1998 S.C.M.R. 1462).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, respondent No. 2 is directed to re-auction the block in question in accordance with law, rules and regulations of the respondents. He further directed to fix maximum price of Rs. 70,000/-. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 are also directed to submit their application in accordance with advertisement not less than Rs. 70,000/-. In case, respondents Nos.4 and 5 fail to offer less than Rs. 70,000/- as per their offer already submitted by them, shall be confiscated.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.