2006 PLP 2619 (YLR)
CHANDIA — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL NAZIM, TEHSIL
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2619 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | CHANDIA — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL NAZIM, TEHSIL |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2619 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2619 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2619 (YLR) (CHANDIA — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL NAZIM, TEHSIL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Atif Murtaza for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Auction of collection right in respect of tae on transfer of immovable property
Terms of auction provided the condition that all prospective bidders were required to pay amount of -call deposit in cash to the nominated functionary of Tehsil Municipal Officer or the convener of auction committee, prior to the time of auction
Time of auction was 9-00 a. m.
and according to petitioner's own showing he had obtained a call deposit on the very date of auction and opening time of Bank was 9-00 a.m.
Petitioner had not been able to show that he had deposited call deposit at the relevant time to enable him to fulfill condition of auction
Petitioner therefore, had not been able to establish that he had fulfilled pre-conditions for participation in the auction
Petitioner, in circumstances had no locus standee in the matter. Pirzada Wali Muhammad Naseem Jaffari with Muhammad Safdar, T. M.O. D.G. Khan.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner claims that he was a prospective bidder for the auction of collection rights in respect of the tax on transfer of immovable property. According to learned counsel, the petitioner had also obtained a call deposit of Rs.2500, 000 in order to qualify as a bidder for the said auction.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent TMA, however, has pointed out that the call deposit, and referred to by the petitioner is dated 28-6-2004. The time and date of the auction was 9-00 a.m. on 28-6-2004. According to condition No.7 of the terms of auction, all prospective bidders were requited to deposit Rs.2500.000 in cash or in the form of call deposit with the A nominated functionary of the TMA or the convener of the auction committee, prior to the time of auction. It is submitted by learned counsel for the TMA that the banks open at 9-00 a.m. and even, according to the petitioner's own showing he had obtained a call deposit on the date of auction. On this basis, it was argued that the petitioner has not been able to show that he had the requisite call deposit at the relevant time to enable him to fulfill the conditions of auction.
3. This contention is well-founded and could not be controverter by learned counsel for the petitioner. He merely contended that in actual fact no auction was held in respect of the abovementioned tax on 28-6-2004. This circumstance loses relevance because the petitioner himself has not been able to establish that he had fulfilled the preconditions for participating in the auction. He, therefore, has no locus standee in the matter.
4. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./5-510/L Petition dismissed.