2006 PLP 1450 (CLC)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

Through an advertisement appearing in Daily "Khabrain" on 20-6-2004 the respondent T.M.A. invited prospective bidders to participate in the auction for the collection rights in respect of fees relating to cattle markets. The date of auction was fixed as 28-6-2004. One of the preconditions for participating in the auction was the deposit of Rs.30,00,000 in cash or in the form of a call deposit with the concerned functionary of the respondent T.M.A. prior to the auction.

2. According to the petitioner, although he had furnished a call deposit, the aforesaid auction was not held and instead in a surreptitious and underhand manner a contract for collection of fees was awarded to respondent No.5.

3. A report was called from the respondent T.M.A. which has been submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the T.M.A. and respondent No.5 have been heard. 4.? The petitioner had obtained a call deposit of Rs.30,00,000 from Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Islamabad. Here it is relevant to note that the call deposit signifies that a sum of Rs.30,00,000 was, in fact, deposited by the petitioner with the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.

5. According to learned counsel for the respondent T.M.A., the petitioner did not submit a call deposit. As per parawise comments filed on behalf of the T.M.A., one Dr. Captain Saleem Ahmed provided the call deposit but did not participate in the bidding. As per contents of para.3 of the reply submitted by the T. M. A. , the said Captain Saleem Ahmed has filed a civil suit for return of the call deposit but on the intervention of the Secretary, Local Government, the call deposit has been returned to the "person concerned".

6. The version of events put forth by the respondent T.M.A. is neither credible nor is it supported by the record of the T M.A. itself. The original record of the T.M.A. was produced in Court. From the same there appears to be no connection between the petitioner Zabta Khan and Dr. Captain Saleem Ahmed. Furthermore, the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the T.M.A. are also evasive. The "person concerned" mentioned in para. 3, of the T.M.A's. reply has not been named.

7. An application purportedly moved by Captain Saleem Ahmed, dated 7-7-2004 has been placed on record. In application it has been alleged that the aforesaid applicant furnished the call deposit of Rs.30,00,000 but did not participate in the auction although he? purportedly remained in the auction hall for a longtime but thereafter left on account of some urgent personal business. 8.? From a certificate issued by Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., it is clear that the call deposit was made out in the name of the petitioner Zabta Khan and not in the name of Captain Saleem Ahmed. Secondly, from the parawise comments filed by respondent No.3 it is clear that the call deposit was not returned to Captain Saleem Ahmad and the stance based on the involvement of this person was untrue.

9. It is not at all reasonable to expect that the petitioner having raised the substantial sum of Rs.30,00,000 to arrange a call deposit from Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., had not been present to participate in the auction on the date fixed by the T.M.A. Added to this, the absence of any connection between the petitioner and the above named Captain Saleem Ahmed coupled with the deliberately inconsistent and misleading reply on behalf of the respondent T.M.A. leaves me in no doubt that the story set up by the respondent T.M.A. is false. Here I need to mention that another prospective bidder namely Ch. Muhammad Afzal (petitioner in Writ Petition No.3634 of 2004), had also prepared a call deposit of Rs.30,00,000 but alleged that no auction for the above contract was held.

10. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to instructions dated 2.4-6-2003 addressed to all D.C.Os. and Tehsil Municipal Officers in the Punjab by the Provincial Government in relation to cattle Mandis. According to the said instructions, a representative of the District Coordination Officer was required to be deputed for observing the auction proceedings in relation to cattle Mandis. Learned counsel for the T.M.A. was not in a position to controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that no representative of the D.C.O. was present at. the auction. The Tehsil Municipal Officer was himself present. When questioned, he stated that the aforesaid instructions had not been received by him. Considering the dubious conduct of the T.M.A. noted above, I do not find this statement to be credible.

11. In the above circumstances, I am clear that the award of the contract for collection of fees relating to cattle Mandis awarded by the respondent T.M.A. to Muhammad Ayub (respondent No.5) was wholly illegal and without lawful basis. I am also not in any doubt that the purported auction proceedings are incorrect. In the circumstances, the purported auction and the award of contract in favour of Muhammad Ayub (respondent No.5) are hereby set aside. F.B./Z-140/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.