1991 PLP 1631 (CLC)

R.A. Zafar for Appellant. Inayat Ullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1991. The dispute in this case relates to reserve price/auction price of Durga Das Cotton Factory Gillewala, District Multan. The industrial concern in dispute was put to auction on numerous occasions but the sale was not finalised. Previously, the reserve price was fixed at Rs.54,000 but it did not receive any bid. The reserve price was, therefore, reduced to Rs.35,

591. It was again put to auction on 27‑6‑1973 with the reduced reserve price. It did not receive any bid. Consequently, tenders were invited under the Revised Settlement Scheme No.VIII on reserve price of Rs.35,

591. The appellant and two others participated in the negotiation. He gave the highest bid of Rs.15,500 which was however, rejected on 8‑11‑1973 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The appellant feeling aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.900/R of 1973 on the plea that in terms of paragraph 7(c) of Settlement Scheme No.VIII as re‑constituted, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no power in law to reject the highest offer. The learned Judge in Chamber, after exhaustive examination of the plea raised by the appellant and examining the case‑lad' on the subject, held that the word "shall" used in paragraph 7(c) of the Scheme No.VIII as re‑constituted, is directory.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and examining Scheme No.VIII with reference to its policy and object and the case‑law on the subject examined by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, we are respectfully inclined to re‑affirm his view that the word "shall" used in paragraph 7(c) of the Scheme is directory. Paragraph 7(c) reads as under:‑ ., "(c) an industrial concern or a cinema house, whether allotted or not by the Industrial Rehabilitation Board, shall be transferred through negotiation and the highest offer made shall be accepted, irrespective of its reserve price. Acceptance of the offer shall be displayed at a prominent place in the office of the competent Settlement Authority for the information of contesting parties."

3. Be that as it may, the discretion vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner is to be exercised justly, fairly and in accordance with law, having regard to its object and policy and not arbitrarily and capriciously while accepting or rejecting the bid depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the previous background of the case was ignored by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the property in dispute was put to auction on numerous occasions and every time the bid fetched was much below the reserve price.

4. In view of the above, we think it appropriate that the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement) should decide the matter afresh, particularly, in view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the appellant that the latter is ready and willing to pay the last reserve price fixed at Rs.35,

591. Order accordingly. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue. (Settlement) on 18‑3‑1991. With these observations, the L.PA. is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑2679/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly