2010 PLP 794 (CLC)

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.

This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 rises from the judgment dated 27-5-2009 whereby a constitutional petition filed by respondent No.1 against the order of the respondent No.2 was accepted.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are; that the land in dispute measuring 190 Kanals admittedly vests in the Auqaf Department in respect whereof leasehold rights had been granted to the present appellant. On the expiry of the lease a proclamation was issued in the local press inviting bids for a fresh lease of the said land through public auction. Respondent No.1 along with others apparently submitted their bids at the public auction held on 9-2-2009 and respondent No.1 was declared the highest bidder with the bid of Rs.2,50,

000. Whereafter, respondent No.2 declined to accept the bid apparently, upon an application of the appellant who offered a highest offer of Rs.2,80,

000. Fresh auction was directed to be held. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a Constitutional petition which was accepted by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment impugned dated 27-5-2009.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that respondent No.1 had no locus standi to file the Constitutional petition as mere submission of a bid did not create any vested right in his favour and respondent No.1 had the absolute right to reject any such bid. Adds that the appellant was excluded from the bidding process which even otherwise was not conducted in accordance with law. Further contended that the appellant has offered a higher amount, therefore, appropriate order had been passed by respondent Department. In support of his contention learned counsel had relied on Mumtaz Ahmad Chadhar v. Rana Nasir Ali and 3 others 2005 SCMR 263 and Malik Habibullah v. Province of the Punjab through Secretary Mines and Mineral Department, Lahore and 7 others 2006 CLC 1723.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. While counsel for the Auqaf Department has supported the case of the appellant and has contended that a higher amount can be obtained for the Department which was the primary consideration for directing a fresh auction.

5. Arguments heard and record perused. There can be no escape from the fact that a bid submitted is no more than an offer and does not mature into a vested right in favour of the bidder till the same is accepted. In the instant case it was clearly spelt out in the proclamation inviting bids that the competent authority retains the absolute right to accept or reject any bid. In the instant case such power has been exercised and the bid was rejected. It is clear and obvious that the reason for rejection of the bid was the distinct and clear possibility of fetching a higher amount through a re-auction. In the above circumstances, it appears that the decision of respondent No.2 declining to accept the bid of respondent No.1 and directing re-auction has been made in the best interest of the Department so as to fetch a higher lease amount. Even otherwise, it appears that perhaps the auction was not carried out in accordance with the rules applicable. It is specifically provided in rule 7(a)(iii) of the Waqf Property (Administration) Rules, 1960 that the auction should be held at the spot or such other place close to it. In the instant case the auction was held at the distance of 40 miles from the spot. A fact which has been confirmed by the representative of the department present in Court today and not disputed by either the appellant or respondent No.1. In the above circumstances the decision to re-auction the lease hold of the property appears to be in accordance with law and in the best interest of the Waqf. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 27-5-2009 is set aside and the Auqaf Department is directed to re-auction the property. It is expected that this auction shall be held strictly in accordance with the rules in a fair and transparent manner. Appeal accepted in the above terms. M.U.Y./N-9/L Appeal accepted.