1997 PLP 683 (CLC)

This revision petition is directed against order dated 28‑7‑1996 whereby the application for temporary injunction moved with the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil judge, Bahawalpur. The petitioner/plaintiff went in appeal which was also dismissed on 15‑8‑1996 by Syed Irshad Hussain Abidi, learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was the highest bidder at an auction for awarding contract by the District Council, Bahawalpur for a period of one year w.e.f. 1‑7‑1996 to 30‑6‑1997 for collection of export tax. The highest bid offered by him was accepted, however, later on' the same was arbitrarily cancelled allegedly in violation of the existing rules. The respondents thereafter re‑auctioned the contract for collection of export tax, which was awarded to respondent No.4 vide auction conducted on 17‑7‑1996.

3. The order of cancellation of bid is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to a period of 7 days to deposit tenth of the amount of bid and thereafter the provisions contained in rule 17 of the Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990 could be invoked. It was, therefore, urged that since the statutory period of 7 days as provided in sub‑rule (8) of rule 16 of the Rules ibid, was not given to the petitioner, therefore, the cancellation of the bid was illegal. In this context, it was also urged that respondents did not give any notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount of bid nor the same was ever served upon him in accordance with the provisions contained in section 174 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It was, therefore, urged that the order of the respondent to cancel the highest bid of the petitioner was illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction.

4. The respondents contested the petitions in the Courts below on the ground that the bid offered by the petitioner though highest was cancelled in accordance with law because he failed to deposit the remaining amount in accordance with notice issued to him. In that situation, the lease was re -auctioned on 17‑7‑1996 for a period of 11 months which fetched highest bid of 6 crores and 61 lacs rupees from respondent No.4 and as such the bid was confirmed in his name. The previous bid in favour of the petitioner was for one year and its amount was 7 crore rupees whereas the subsequent bid by respondent No.4 though for 11 months competitively fetched higher amount than the previous bid. It was, therefore, urged that petitioner had no prima facie case for the issuance of temporary injunction, and that his petition was rightly rejected by the Courts below.

5. I have considered the foregoing facts and have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that highest bid of rupees 7 crores offered by the petitioner was finally approved for a period of one year w.e.f. 1‑7‑1996 to 30‑6‑1997. The petitioner deposited earnest money of rupees 30 lacs and was called upon to deposit the remaining amount according to the terms of the auction sheet by 30‑6‑1996 with a notice issued on 29‑6‑1996. Since the notice was allegedly presented to the petitioner at 5‑00 p.m., therefore, he refused to thumb‑mark the same in token of its receipt. Thereupon, a fresh notice was issued on 30‑6‑1996 with a direction to deposit the lease amount till 2‑7‑1996, which was entrusted to Ashiq i.e. a Naib Qasid of the District Council for service upon the petitioner. The aforesaid process‑server went to the petitioner and presented the notice, but the same was refused by the petitioner.

6. In the above background, the auction was cancelled on 3‑7‑1996 and a fresh suction was announced to be held on 17‑7‑1996 by giving advertisement in the newspaper. It was on that date that the auction had taken place.

7. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least 7 days should have been given for the deposit of remaining amount does not appear to be sound because by implication more than that period was available to the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of auction if he was actually interested to continue with the contract. The foregoing facts reveal that the first notice was issued to the petitioner on 29‑6‑1996, which he refused to thumb mark whereupon another notice was issued on 30‑6‑1996, which he refused to accept as per report of the process‑server. In the light of the aforesaid refusal of the petitioner, the auction was cancelled on 3‑7‑1996 and a fresh auction was announced for 17‑7‑1996. If the petitioner was keen to be‑hold the contract, he could deposit the remaining amount before the re‑auction could take place, but nothing was done in that direction. In such a situation it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to the cancellation of bid which took place because of his fault to deposit the remaining amount of the auction proceedings. Even otherwise there will be no irreparable loss because the contract was prima facie frustrated because of the not‑compliance of the petitioner to perform his part of the contract to deposit the remaining amount as pointed out above. Even otherwise it is money matter, where loss or damage can be reasonably calculated, therefore, the violation of contract will not call for issuance of a temporary injunction there being no irreparable loss. The balance of convenience is also on the side of the new auction bidder who had given comparatively higher bid and his bid also stands finally approved by respondents.

8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below remain unexceptionable and do not call for interference on the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This Revision Petition being meritless is dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑236/L Revision dismissed.