1999 PLP 463 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 463 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdur Razzaq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 463 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 463 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Abdur Razzaq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 463 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Petitioners.
- Shehram Sarwar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Auction‑ ‑‑‑‑ Auction purchase ‑‑‑Refusal to deliver auction articles‑‑‑Bidder participated in open auction and was the highest bidder of a vehicle‑‑‑Bidder deposited the whole auction price at the spot, bid was confirmed in his favour and registration book alongwith delivery letter of the vehicle was handed over to him‑‑‑Authorities refused delivery of the vehicle to successful bidder on the pretext that some other person had offered more amount than the one offered by him‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Auction was not cancelled and was infield‑‑ Authorities had accepted entire amount of auction price, issued delivery note and registration book of the vehicle concerned‑‑ Authorities could not refuse the delivery of the vehicle to the bidder in circumstances‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan' (1973), Art. 199.
Judgment & Decree
Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No.2 invited tenders to sell in open auction some used up furniture and vehicle 1984 which auction was held on 28‑8‑1998. The conditions for participation in auction were also published in the newspaper which stands reflected in the clipping annexed with this petition. The petitioner participated in the auction to purchase the vehicle on the aforesaid day. He being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and he paid Rs.1,00,000 at the spot instead of 50% of the price, as stipulated in the clipping Annexure B. After payment of auction price, he was issued a delivery letter on the same day and so also registration book. As per terms of auction, he went to respondent No.3 for the delivery of the vehicle whereupon he was not delivered the same. He was informed that one Aslam had offered a sum of Rs.1,50,000, as such the vehicle will not be delivered to him. Feeling aggrieved of this attitude and reply of respondent No.3, he has filed the instant writ petition with a direction that respondent No.3 be directed to hand over the vehicle to him.
2. Comments of the respondents were called which have been submitted.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions incorporated in the petition as discussed above.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has asserted that as per terms and conditions of the auction, final authority vested with the respondents to accept the bid or not. He contends that in exercise of the said powers vested in the respondents, auction has not been approved and as such the petitioner has been refused the delivery of the said vehicle. However, when questioned if any order of cancellation of the said bid has been passed, he has not been able to give any reply of the same.
6. It is evident from the facts stated above that as a result of open auction, the petitioner being the highest bidder, was allowed to purchase the articles referred in the clipping of the newspaper. He deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000 on the same day and was consequently issued a delivery letter as well as registration book of the vehicle concerned. He has simply been denied the delivery on the ground that one Aslam appeared before respondent No.3 and offered td purchase the same at a price of Rs.50,000 more than the one offered by the petitioner. Had respondent No.3 not accepted the entire amount of auction price, not issued delivery note and not issued the registration book of the vehicle concerned, there could be some logic in refusing the delivery of the vehicle concerned. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that auction which was conducted on 28‑8‑1998 still holds the field as the same has not been cancelled till today. This being the factual position, respondent No.3 could not refuse the delivery of the vehicle concerned to the petitioner.
7. In the light of facts stated above, the petition is accepted and respondent No.3 is directed to hand over the vehicle to the petitioner. Petition allowed Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1039/L