1986 PLP 604 (MLD)

Muhammad Younis Bhatti for Petitioner. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Messrs Bashir, Nazir & Company, the petitioner, wants this Court to declare the memorandum, dated 16‑1‑1983 and auction proceedings scheduled for 23‑1‑1983 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition as stated by the learned counsel for petitioner in brief are that petitioner firm was doing business in Old Grain Market, Multan, under a valid licence issued by the Market Committee when on 29‑11‑1977 M.L.O. No.21 was issued asking all persons carrying on any trade specified under the Agricultural Produce Market Act within the municipal limits of Multan to shift within 30 days from Old Grain Market to the New Grain Market on Multan Vehari Road constructed by the Market Committee, Multan. Consequently, the, petitioner shifted to. New Grain Market and occupied Plot No.2 which however was subsequently allotted to some one else under the orders of the President of Pakistan. Thereafter, the petitioner occupied Plot No. 4 and a portion of Plot No.3 in New Grain Market. The officials of the Market Committee prepared the list of the commission agents for allotment of Plots to them but the petitioner's name was not included therein. The petitioner, therefore, on 5‑12‑1977 moved application before Commissioner, Multan, which was ultimately sent to Administrator, Market Committee, Multan, for disposal. Another application, dated 12‑2‑1976 of the petitioner was also sent to the Administrator for further action. On this Administrator, Market Committee required the petitioner to produce relevant documents in support of his claim. The petitioner accordingly produced documents before him. The petitioner and others also agitated the matter before the Governor of the Punjab who directed the Commissioner, Multan, to resolve the genuine rights of the commission agents whereon the Commissioner constituted a sub‑committee to examine the claims for allotments. The sub‑committee recommended names of ten firms including the petitioner. Then objections were invited and received. Having examined the matter, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the credentials of the 10 recommendees including the petitioner were not beyond doubts. He, therefore, recommended that the two available Plots Nos.4 and 3 be put to auction. The Director, Agriculture (Economics and Marketing), Punjab, Lahore, approved the recommendation. Resultantly the Plots were to be put to auction on 23‑1‑1983. The petitioner came to know of the proposed auction on 12‑1‑1983. He moved application before Chairman, Market Committee, on which the impugned memorandum annexure '0' was sent to him informing that his claim has already been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, Multan. He was further told that since he was guilty of encroachment over the public property, therefore, action under M.L.O. No.821 for the removal of encroachment would be initiated against him. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm was a genuine commission agent and as such was entitled to the allotment of Plot No.4 and portion of Plot No.3; that the petitioner firm was a genuine occupant of these Plots and, therefore, there was no justification to deprive the petitioner of the allotment of this property. On the other hand the learned Commissioner has found the claim of the petitioner not beyond doubts. The Chairman, Market Committee in his parawise comments has refuted the assertions of the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the reply he has clearly stated that the petitioner is not in possession of any portion of Plot No. 4 or 3 and has illegally occupied a Tharra of Plot No.3 which does not create any entitlement for the allotment of Plots Nos. 4 and 3 and that the petitioner firm is not a e genuine firm and is in no way eligible to get allotment of Plots Nos.3 and 4.

4. The above statement of facts indicates that the assertions of the petitioner that he was a genuine firm, that the firm was a valid occupant of Plot No.4 and a portion of Plot No.3 that he was entitled to the allotment of these Plots have been seriously refuted by the Commissioner as well as by the Chairman, Market Committee. The petition, therefore, involves disputed question of facts which cannot be resolved without deeper investigation which I am afraid may not be done by this Court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any provision of law entitling the petitioner to the allotment of Plot No.4 and portion of Plot No.3 as a matter of right. To my mind in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner had no vested right over the disputed Plots For all these reasons the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not hold any water.

5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T. Writ refused.