' In this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 17-7-2002 passed by respondent No,2. He has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow him (petitioner) to collect the transfer tax for the period agreed upon between the parties.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent (Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur) invited the parties to join auction proceedings, therefore, petitioner participated in the auction proceedings for the contract of collection right of transfer tax for the year 2002-2003 and he was declared highest bidder against his bid of Rs,17,05,000. Thereafter respondents/Cantonment Board informed him vide letter dated 29-6-2002 about the approval of the contract being highest bidder and he was required to submit non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs,50 for execution of agreement and to deposit the requisite amount. The petitioner supplied non- judicial stamp paper and agreement was duly executed. He also deposited Rs,1,70,500 and Rs,1,42,084 and started the work of collection of transfer tax. Thereafter he received letter dated 17- 7-2002 whereby his contract was suspended with immediate effect and it was done in compliance with Letter No,40/11/Budget/MI&C/2002 dated 9-7-2002. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The respondents were directed to submit report and parawise comments. According to their report and parawise comments petitioner seeks enforcement of contractual obligation through this Constitutional petition, therefore, the same is not maintainable. They have also mentioned that although the petitioner was highest bidder but his bid was not approved by competent Authority (Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore Region, Lahore) and according to rules this approval was necessary. The respondents have stated that no written agreement has been executed between the parties in this regard and this is also requirement of law and rules. Also that Cantonment Board had not transferred the collection rights of transfer tax and no written deed of handing/taking over was made and that respondents had authority to suspend and cancel the collection right of transfer tax. The respondents have mentioned in their report that Cantonment Board suspended the petitioner's collection right of transfer tax in compliance with the instructions of D.G.M.L. & C, Ministry of Defense, Rawalpindi vide letter dated 9-7-2002 that such taxes should be collected by the Board through their own staff.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. As mentioned above the case of the petitioner is that he was declared highest bidder for the contract of collection right of transfer tax for the year 2002-2003. According to para. No,3 of writ petition agreement was duly executed between the parties. However, respondents have clearly mentioned in their parawise comments and report that no written agreement had been executed between the parties in this regard and that this was also requirement of law and rules. The petitioner has not produced agreement allegedly executed between the parties. During arguments learned counsel for the respondents produced blank stamp paper and submitted that petitioner had never executed agreement in this regard. As mentioned above petitioner has not produced any agreement duly executed between the parties. Sections 114 and 115 of the Cantonments Act (H of 1924) are as follows:-- #TBS rue- #TBE "114. Execution of contracts.--- (1) Every contract made by or on behalf of a Board, the value or amount of which exceeds fifty rupees, shall be in writing, and every such contract shall be signed by two members, of whom the President or the Vice-President shall be one, and be countersigned by the Executive Officer and be sealed with the common seal of the Board: ' Provided that, the Executive Officer may in a case of urgency, with the previous sanction of the president of the Board, execute on behalf of the Board any contract the value or amount of which does not exceed two hundred rupees.
(2) Where an Executive Officer executes a contract on behalf of a Board under subsection (1), he shall submit a report of his action and of the reasons therefor, to the Board at its next meeting.
115. Contracts improperly executed not to be binding on a Board.--- If any contract is executed by or on behalf of a Board otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter, it shall not be binding on the Board."
'As such in my opinion there was no contract between the parties. According to case of Dr. Fazal Din v. Municipal Committee, Lyallpur PLD 1956 (W.P.) Lah. 916 agreement of lease by a Municipal Committee was reduced into writing but did not bear the seal of the Committee, therefore, the same was held to be void, not being biding on either party to the lease. As mentioned above in the instant case, there is no agreement on record. As such claim of the petitioner is baseless.
6. The case of petitioner is that after deposit of non-judicial stamp paper and requisite amount (Rs,1,70,500 and Rs,1,42,084) he had been collecting the transfer tax in question. However, the case of respondents is that competent authority has not granted approval so far and that petitioner had not executed agreement, therefore, there is no question of collection of transfer tax by him. It shows that factual controversy is involved in this case and it cannot be resolved without recording evidence, which is not possible for this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. So this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.