2008 PLP 616 (CLC)
AL-TECH ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Lahore and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 616 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AL-TECH ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Lahore and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 616 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 616 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 616 (CLC) (AL-TECH ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Lahore and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Pervez for Petitioner.
- Malik Zafar Iqbal Awan, A.A.-G. Javed Iqbal for Respondent No.2.
- Ms. Sidra Fatima Sheikh for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Auction of State land for Rs.17,39,00,000 alleged by petitioner to be much less than its market price causing loss to public exchequer and he offered price of Rs.51,00,00,000 therefor
Petitioner while arguing petition reduced his offer to Rs.21,00,00,000, which fact indicated that he wanted to delay sale proceedings
Whether value of property was Rs.21,00,00,000 or Rs.17,00,00,000 was a pure question of fact, which could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction
High Court dismissed petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.
The respondent No.2 is the owner of the disputed property, it negotiated and finalized the sale of the same with the respondent No.4 for consideration of Rs.17,39,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore thirty-nine hundred thousand only). This sale has been challenged by filing the instant petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the auction price of Rs.17,39,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore thirty-nine hundred thousand, only) is much less than the market price, therefore, a loss to public exchequer would occur if the said sale is permitted to be carried out. The learned counsel submitted that the actual value of the property is not less than 51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only). In these circumstances he prayed for annulment and setting aside of the agreement inter se the respondents Nos.2 and 4.
3. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed parawise comments and objected to the maintainability of the instant petition. They also categorically stated that no irregularity has been committed, the matter was finalized through auction and optimum price of land has been fetched. Even otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.
4. This petition came up for hearing on 29-1-2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to obtain instructions from the petitioner as to whether he was willing to pay a price of Rs.51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only) for the disputed land or not as suggested by him. Today the learned counsel has submitted that they assess the price at around Rs.21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only), however, he cannot make a definite offer in the absence of his client. Therefore, from the statement of the counsel it is clear that the petitioner has drastically reduced the figure from Rs.51,00,00,000 (Rupees fifty-one crore only) to Rs.21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only). This in itself is a clear indication that the petitioner merely wants to delay the proceedings and nothing else.
5. On merits it is clear that the property in dispute was sold through auction, the respondent No.2 has purchased it. Whether the value of the property is Rs.21,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty-one crore only) or Rs.17,00,00,000 (Rupees seventeen crore only) is a pure question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the present jurisdiction. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and is hence dismissed. S.A.K./A-255/L Petition dismissed.