PLD 1998

P L D 1998 Lahore 209 (PLP)

JEHANGIR MUGHAL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
1997-September-29
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1998 Lahore 209 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties JEHANGIR MUGHAL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1998 Lahore 209 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1998 Lahore 209 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1998 Lahore 209 (PLP) (JEHANGIR MUGHAL — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner,
  • Dr. M. Mohyuddin Qazi for Respondents

Headnotes / Summary

S. 26-A

Punjab Zila Council (Goods Exit) Tax Rules, 1990, R.5

Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, R.5

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Auction of right to collection of goods exit tax

Petitioner claimed to be the highest bidder, yet his bid had not been confirmed by Administrator who had submitted papers to Commissioner for approval of the bid

Petitioner's main grievance was that Administrator, in absence of Zila Council, would be having sole authority to confirm or reject any bid and that Commissioner did not figure in the relevant law

Respondent's plea was that there being glaring difference between last year auction and present one, Administrator thought it proper to send papers to Commissioner so as to have full transparency of situation

After submission of papers, Commissioner had received offers from some persons quoting far more higher amount than that offered by petitioner and they had also deposited specified call amounts in terms of their respective offers

High Court without dilating upon contentions raised by parties disposed of Constitutional petition with direction that respondents without waste of any time would call for fresh auction and base line should be the highest amount offered to Commissioner

In case of non-participation of petitioner in auction, amount deposited by him earlier would stand forfeited.

Judgment & Decree

Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has made a grievance that in spite of the fact that he was the highest bidder for the grant of lease respecting collection of goods exit tax but the same has not been confirmed by respondent No.2, the Administrator who has submitted the papers to the Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore for its approval. Facts briefly for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 put up the lease rights for the collection of exit control tax for the year 1997-98 to auction but could not fetch more than 50 lacs. Subsequently an attempt was made on 2-9-1997 and the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.10,600,

000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the respondent Administrator instead of performing his duties under Local Council Lease Rules, 1990 submitted the papers to the Commissioner for approval. Argument has been advanced that it is only the Administrator who in the absence of Zila Council would be having sole authority to either confirm or reject the bid but the Commissioner does not figure in the whole law. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the stance taken by the petitioner. He has taken preliminary objection respecting the very maintainability of this writ petition not only on the ground that the parties are not properly arrayed as respondent No. l could not have been sued through Chief Officer but also on the ground that the petitioner has got no locus standi as the bid is not yet confirmed. It is further argued that under section 26-A of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979, all the funds of the Local Council are vested in the Government. He has also made a reference to sections 156, 157, 158 of the Ordinance to demonstrate the powers enjoyed by the Government and the Commissioner in such-like matters. He has further pointed out that since there was glaring difference between the last year auction and the present one, as such the Administrator thought it proper to send the papers to the Commissioner so as to have full transparency of the situation. It has been brought to my notice that after the submission of the papers, the Commissioner received offers from one Muhammad Amin and Safiullah Khan respectively for Rs.1,25,00,000 and Rs.1,30,00,

000. Both of them according to the learned counsel have deposited call amount of Rs.15,00,000 each. In these circumstances, when the offer received by respondent is Rs.1,30,00,000 as such without dilating upon the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the respondents without waste of any time shall call for a fresh auction and the baseline should be Rs.1,30,00,

000. In case Safiullah Khan Tausif does not participate in the auction, his amount of Rs.15 lacs deposited by him earlier shall stand forfeited. Disposed of in the above terms. A.A./J-29/L? Order accordingly.