P L D 2002 Lahore 359 (PLP)

(d) Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990

S. 2

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Public auction

Giving seven leases/contracts to one person and imposing of condition to deposit Rs.1,00,000 by the bidders prior to taking part in auction proceedings

Validity

Action of the Authorities was in public interest

Instead of dealing 'with seven different persons it was easy to deal with one person for smooth running

Was also in public interest to direct the bidder to 'deposit Rs.1,00,000 for testing his bona fides

Where lease in question was not leased out for the last year, the period mentioned in the advertisement was not prejudicing rights of any person which was in fact prescribed by the policy maker in the public interest

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Jan Muhammad v. Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad 1998 MLD 1151 distinguished. (e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Clean hands

Where the petitioner did not approach High Court with clean hands, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in his favour

Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Nawabazada Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 rel. Rana Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Fowzi Zafar, A.A.-G. for Respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-- "In view of above made submissions, it is humbly prayed that stipulation imposed by respondents for giving leases/contracts Serial Nos. 1 to 7 as given in advertisement to one person and enhancing the time period of these leases up to 16 months or less or more than year may very kindly be declared illegal, against Lease Rules, 1990, stipulation imposed to have been passed without lawful authority and void ab initio. During the pendency of the writ petition auction proceeding over these leases/contract Serial Nos. 1 to 7 may very kindly be suspended. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems appropriate and justified be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents have issued the public notice qua the contracts/leases in question in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990. He further submits that according to Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules prescribed duty upon the respondents to lease out by public auction for a period not exceeding one year for the collection rights of the tax, fee, rate, tool cess or other charges levelled by Local Council. The impugned advertisement itself reveals that the same was issued by the respondents in violation of the aforesaid Rules. He further submits that respondents imposed a condition about the giving leases/contracts from Serial Nos. l to 7 to one person which is also illegal and the respondents have no power and authority to impose any such kind of stipulation which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid rules and the law laid down by the superior Courts. Similarly the condition prescribed by the respondents that the amount in advance to participate in auction proceedings of said leases has to deposit is Rs.1,00,000 which is also not in public interest. In support of his contention he has relied upon Jan Muhammad v. Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad 1998 MLD 1151. Mr.' Fowzi Zafar, A.A.-G. submits that writ petition is not maintainable.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and. perused the record myself. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in representative capacity as is evident from the contents of the writ petition and the prayer clause. It is settled principle of A law that principles of C.P.C. are applicable in Constitutional proceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in violation of the, mandatory provisions of Order I, rule 8, C.P.C. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Anjuman-e-Arayan, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid PLD 1973 Lahore 500: Our Constitution is based on trichotomy as per principle laid down by the IB honourable Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC

49. This Court has only power to interpret the law and has no jurisdiction to take the, role of policy maker in the garb of interpretation, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as per principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Zamir Ahmad Khan's case 1978 SCMR

327. The action of the respondents appears to be in public interest. Instead of dealing 7 different persons it is easy to deal with one person for smooth running: It is also in public interest to direct the contended bidder to deposit Rs.1,00,000 forlD testing his bona fide. It is pertinent to mention here that leases in question were not leased out for the last year. Therefore, the period mentioned in the advertisement is not prejudicing rights of. any person which is in fact prescribed by the policy maker in the public interest. The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. Keeping in view the aforesaid special circurristances of this case I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner E did not approach this Court with clean hands, as per principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Nawabzada Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC

236. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N-160/L Petition dismissed.