1994 PLP 2085 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R. 15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.X)IXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Interim order passed in suit maintaining status quo‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Lease through negotiation can be made if the bid amount is found inadequate and needed to be improved‑‑‑Petitioner being higher bidder in the open auction was served with a notice to take part in the negotiations when it was brought to the notice of authorities that the bid money was inadequate and another party was prepared to pay a substantial amount in excess of the bid offered by the petitioner‑‑ Petitioner, however, did not participate in the negotiations‑‑‑Petitioner, held, was left with no grievance to challenge the proceedings of negotiations especially when his bid offer was yet to tie confirmed ‑‑‑petitioner, therefore, had no prima facie case to argue for interim order in circumstances. Abid Hussain Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1 in person. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought for against the order dated 6‑3‑1994 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No. 306 of 1994. The petitioner, was successful bidder of the excavation of ordinary Sand work in Mauza Mira'al Wasa, Mouza Ahmad Minor/28 N.P, Mouza 7 N.P. Sohni‑wali for the years 1991 to 1993. He participated alongwith others in the bid held for leasing out the same area for the year 1993‑1995 through open auction. The petitioner offered highest bid than the previous year, therefore, he was asked to deposit 1/4th of the entire bid money with the authority at the spot as required under Rule 19 of the Rules applicable and was further asked to continue with the work in the auctioned area. However, he received a notice from the Additional Director for attending his office on 2‑10‑1993 for negotiation of the bid in question. The petitioner did attend the office but did not participate in the proceedings as in his view the negotiations were in contravention of the Rules and in violation of the instructions. However, respondent No. l offered Rs.96,000 more than what the petitioner had offered in the bid by the petitioner in open auction. Accordingly, the petitioner's bid was not confirmed. Petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an appeal, as provided by the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990, which was heard by Director Agricultural Development (respondent No.4). It was contended before the appellate authority that under Rule 15 authorising negotiation it must be clearly found that the bid offer was inadequate and it was needed to be improved. The petitioner's appeal was partially allowed and the matter was remanded back to the licensing authority (respondent No.4) for holding negotiation afresh. :The order in appeal was challenged in revision petition by both the parties before the Secretary, Department of Mineral Development Punjab (respondent No‑3) who was pleased to accept the revision petition of respondent No.1 confirming his negotiation offer while revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan and made an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2.of the Civil Procedure Code for maintaining CP‑status‑quo which was granted on 4‑12‑1993. Two appeals were filed against the said interim order; one by the Punjab Government and the other by respondent No.

1. Both these were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 10‑1‑1994. Respondent No.1 then filed a revision petition (No.306 of 1994) in Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which was allowed by judgment dated 6‑3‑1994 with the result that application for temporary injunction was dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. It is not denied that under Rule 15 of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 the lease through negotiation can be made if the bid amount is found inadequate and needed to be improved. Petitioner being higher bidder in the open auction was, therefore, served with a notice to take part in the negotiation when it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the bid money was inadequate and that the party (respondent No. l) was prepared to pay Rs.96,000 in excess of the bid offer by petitioner. Petitioner did not participate in the negotiations, therefore, prima facie he has been left with no grievance to challenge the proceedings specially when his bid offer was yet to be confirmed. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned High Court that prima facie the petitioner has got no case to argue for interim order. We, accordingly, refuse to grant leave to appeal and dismiss the petition. M.B.A./5‑892/S Petition dismissed.