2011 PLP 529 (CLC)

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.

Auction of the contract for collection of Tobacco Cess Was advertised and bidders were invited to participate in the auction scheduled to be held on 14-6-2010 to 16-6-2010. Many persons participated in the auction but the one which was offered by petitioner No.1 was found highest. For one reason or another it was cancelled and advertised afresh. Bidders were again invited to participate in the process scheduled to be held on 28th, 29th and 30th June, 2010. On 29th June, 2010, though according to the petitioners they were present at the desired place, but auction was concluded in favour of respondent No.3 without giving them a chance to take part in that. Hence, this petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that when the bid of the petitioners was highest in the auction held on 14th June, 2010, the contract of Collecting Tobacco Cess was to be awarded to them and that the respondents without any rhyme or reason and without any understandable cause, acted against the recognized law and procedure by cancelling it. The learned counsel next contended that when the auction was held in a secret and clandestine manner without calling the petitioners in the Auction Hall at the relevant time, such action cannot be termed transparent under any canons of law.

3. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the previous highest bid offered by the petitioners was cancelled because it was not in accordance with the expectation and that the second auction proceeding being in accordance with law and procedure is unexceptionable. It is, the learned counsel added, all the more unexceptionable when the act complained of has been done and completed.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Previously, the contract for the collection of Tobacco Cess was auctioned on 14-6-2010 but for one reason or another it was cancelled, notwithstanding the petitioner No.1 was the highest bidder. It was advertised afresh for fresh bids. The petitioners along with the respondents attended the office after fulfilling all the pre-requisites. Though according to the record produced today in the court, the petitioners and the private respondent have been marked present on 28th June, 2010, but on that day no auction proceeding is shown to have taken place. On 29th June, 2010, only three persons are shown to have been present including one of the respondents but the date appears to have been tampered with in the record submitted today in the court by the concerned official. On the same date, the bid offered by the said respondent being highest is shown to have been accepted but the date on the said document appears to have been tampered with. The proceeding of auction cannot be said to be transparent when the earlier has been cancelled without any tenable reason and the documents relating to the latter appear to have been tampered with. Another thing militating against the transparency of the auction is that three dates were given in the advertisement i.e. 28th, 29th and 30th June, 2010 for auction, but strangely enough it was concluded on 29th June, 2010. Once the dates were mentioned in the advertisement to be the dates for participating in the process of auction, what was the necessity on the part of the respondents to hasten it, has not been explained muchless plausibly. This indecent and unnecessary haste points to the conclusion that the respondents were all out to give the contract to the private respondent, notwithstanding there could be every legitimate expectation for the turn up of a bidder on the last date who could offer much higher bid than that of the respondent. Once the transparency of the auction is brought under a thick cloud of doubt, it would be rather unjust to wink there at. We thus allow this petition, set aside the auction proceeding and direct the respondents to re-auction it after fulfilling the codal formalities within a fortnight. H.B.T./62/P Petition allowed.