1994 PLP 2245 (MLD)
JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus D.C. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2245 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus D.C. and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2245 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2245 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2245 (MLD) (JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus D.C. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Ashraf Butt for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R.6(2)
Refund of-Petitioner who offered high bid for auction of right of collection of tax on transfer of immovable protest for the relevant year had deposited amount as security/earnest money according to terms and conditions of auction
Auction in favour of petitioner/auction-purchaser had not been approved by Controlling Authority with observation that if on reauction the highest bid happened to be less than offered by petitioner/auction-purchaser, members of Local Council who supported for disapproval of auction of petitioner, would be responsible for loss
Petitioner who after disapproval of his auction, had become entitled to refund of earnest money deposited by him, was denied such refund
Loeal Council in view of observation of Controlling Authority that members who voted for cancellation of auction in favour of petitioner would be responsible for loss, approved auction in favour of petitioner, but confiscated earnest money deposited by him on assumption that petitioner had failed to deposit amount of lease after its approval
Once auction was in the first instance not approved and was ordered to be reauctioned, petitioner had become entitled to refund of earnest money deposited by him as security and if Local Council had decided to get said auction approved subsequently from the House or concerned Authority, petitioner was not bound by same
Local Council had no right to forfeit amount of earnest money deposited by petitioner on erroneous assumption that after approval of auction second time petitioner was bound to abide by its terms and pay lease money
Refund of earnest money was ordered, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents in spite of intimation through PCAD. The respondents are hereby proceeded against ex parte.
2. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000 which he deposited as security/earnest money regarding auction of right of collection of tax on transfer of immovable property for the year 1991-92.
3. The facts of the case are that the Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura, on 29-5-1991 put to auction the rights of collection of tax on transfer of immovable property for the year 1991-92. The petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.40,00,000 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000 according to the terms and conditions of the auction as security/earnest money. The said auction was placed before the House for approval or otherwise. The House through Resolution No.2 dated 1-6-1991 did not approve the said auction and it was decided that the same be put to auction again. The petitioner according to of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 became entitled to rye 6(2) the refund of the said amount of security/earnest money deposited by him. The said resolution of the House was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura who is the controlling authority for approval. The Deputy commissioner observed that if on reauction the highest bid happened to be than the one offered by the petitioner, the members of the Local Council less supported for disapproval of the auction of the petitioner would be responsible for the loss. He, however, approved the resolution and ordered that the right to collect the tax on transfer of immovable property should be put to auction. According to the documents placed on record by the petitioner it appears that an advertisement was published in the Daily "Nawa-i-Wagt" for reauction of the said rights.
4. Respondent No.2 having failed to refund to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,00,000, the petitioner made an application before the Deputy Commissioner on 25-6-1991. He made another application on 24-11-1991. It appears that the Local Council had a second thought and keeping in view the observations made by the Deputy Commissionef while approving resolution No.4 that the members who voted for cancellation of the auction in favour of the petitioner would be responsible for the loss, the auction in favour of the petitioner was again put before the House and got approved and the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 has been confiscated on the assumption that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of lease after its approval.
5. I have gone through the certified copies of the documents placed on the record. Once the auction was in the first instance not approved by the House and it was ordered to be reauctioned through Resolution No.2 which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner became entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs.1,00,000 deposited by him as security and if the local body had on second thought decided to get the said auction approved subsequently from the House, the petitioner was not bound by the same, as such, no right was created, in favour of the Municipal Corporation to forfeit the said amount on the erroneous assumption that after the approval of the said? auction second time the petitioner was bound to abide by its terms and pay the lease money.
6. The refusal of respondent No.2 to refund to the petitioner the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 is not sustainable. This writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./J-82/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.