2007 PLP 1406 (MLD)

SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.

The petitioner has challenged the auction of contract for "Collection of Publicity Board Tax", dated 19-6-2006, conducted by the respondent No.3 for the period from 1-7-2006 to 30-6-2007. According to the learned counsel, the impugned auction was violative of section 54(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and also against the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003).

2. Briefly, the petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of Advertisement. Respondent No.1 publicized in daily `Khabrain' Lahore, dated 9-6-2006 auctioning of its various contracts. The petitioner showed interest in item No. 17 given in the said programme of auction.

3. In the second round of auction, the bid started from Rs.16 lacs. Respondent No.4 offered bid of Rs.18,20,

000. The petitioner enhanced it to 22 lacs. Nevertheless, respondent No.4, was declared as successful .bidder by the respondent No.3, though no final approval was granted.

4. According to the learned counsel, the said auction proceedings in favour of respondent No.4 were violative of Rule 5(5) of the Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 as the reserved price was not mentioned in the publication. The learned counsel further submitted that contract had been given to respondent No.4 who was an "individual", whereas, under section 54(2) of the Punjab Local: Government Ordinance, 2001, it could only be given to an "organization". The learned counsel has relied upon 2004 YLR 366 and an unreported decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2659 of 2004.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel. It is correct that reserved price is not mentioned in the publication, Annex-C, however, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner for the above lapse. The record shows that the required reserved price i.e. Rs.10,55,000 was published on the Notice Board of respondent No.3. It was also announced, prior to the commencement of auction proceedings of Item No.17, the copy of the same was also distributed amongst all the bidders. This circumstance did not exist in the cases mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner as precedents. Therefore, the cited cases are distinguishable from the instant case, and as noted above, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on this count. It may further be pointed out that at the end of auction proceedings of Item No.17, all the bidders including petitioner having token No.5 signed statement of auction proceedings. The petitioner gave impression as he had offered Rs.22,00,000 against bid amount of Rs.18,20,000 offered by respondent No.4. But it is not proved from the record. As a matter of fact, at the end of Auction Proceedings, all bidders signed it including petitioner.

6. The learned counsel heavily relied upon section 54(2)(a) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, which-reads as under:-- "54(2) The Tehsil Municipal Administration may (a) assign or contract out, on such terms and conditions as .are approved by the Tehsil Council and after inviting public objections, any of its functions to any public-private, public or private organization." According to the learned counsel, the "contract", subject-matter of this petition, could only be awarded to an "organization". The respondent No.4 is an "individual" instead of an "organization", therefore, he was not qualified to be' awarded the contract. When I heard the learned counsel, I was struck anguishly that the learned counsel was .reading expression, "contract out" in sense of "contract". Both these expressions i.e. "contract out" and "contract" are different expressions with different meanings. For example, according to Oxford. Advanced Learners Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 332, "contract out" means, to formally agree that you will not take part in something to arrange for work to be done by another company rather than your own. Whereas, to "contract" means, to make an agreement with somebody or an agreement. Contract is employed both as a Verb and Noun, but in both situations, it is a different word than "contract out". Even otherwise, section 54 is part of, Chapter 5, the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, which deals with Tehsil and Town Municipal Administration Section 54 categorically relates to functions and powers of the Tehsil Municipal Administration.' Subsection (1) of section 54 gives detail of functions and powers of Tehsil Administration which it conducts itself. Subsection (2) of section 54 provides list of functions which Tehsil Administration may "assign" or "contract out" to some other public or private organization instead of doing it itself. It has nothing to do with the subject of auction of Contract of Collection of Tax. For the said purpose, the Punjab Local Government. (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003 have been provided. The said Rules have also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I respectfully express that probably this aspect was not considered in the judgments cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Statutory Rules above mentioned, are framed under section 191 of the Ordinance, 2001, and Rule 2 of Punjab Local Government (Auctioning of Collection Rights) Rules, 2003, provides that "contractor" means a person, firm or a company eligible to make contract with local Govermment, Therefore, respondent No.4 was not disqualified to participate in the auction proceedings.

7. Pursuant to the above discussion and forgoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. M.H./C-14/L Petition dismissed.