2010 PLP 356 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Through this petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to transfer the ownership rights to the petitioner after negotiation and not to hold any auction for the sale of the premises.

2. Briefly the facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner is a business man by profession and at present is running shops Nos.G-17 and G-18 Esquire Centre Chowk Hall Road McLeod Road, Lahore. According to the petitioner in the year 1993 by virtue of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 certain properties were taken over by the Liquidation Board. Although the petitioner was in possession of the shops in question as tenant of the then landlord since much before the respondent had taken over of the ownership thereof on 1-11-2004, petitioner entered in agreement of tenancy through rent deed executed by the Cooperative Board for Liquidation and as a result of the said tenancy petitioner started paying rent at a monthly rent of Rs.3,

000. After the execution of rent deed, the petitioner made different representations to the Chairman/Secretary Board requesting them that petitioner intended to purchase the shops in question and was ready and willing to pay reasonable price to be negotiated with the Board, but no response was given by the Board. Petitioner filed a Petition No.2020-C of 2000 before this court which was decided vide order dated 3-9-2004 with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months. Then respondent on 18-11-2004 decided that the petitioner could participate in the auction proceedings to be held by the Board in respect of the shops in question. According to the petitioner, the respondent has already sold out many shops to different peoples by negotiation in the said plaza, and petitioner is also interested who will pay the market price to the respondent for the purchase of said shops.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Shops Nos.10, 16, 19-G, 8 and 11 in the same plaza have already been sold for Rs.16 lac and Rs.18 lac after negotiation on 8-8-2007, shop No.11 to Ali Akbar for amount of Rs.2,25,000, shop No.8 has been sold to Shahid Mustafa and petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment. Relies upon Government of Pakistan and others v. Zafar Iqbal and others 1992 CLC 219 to contend that every citizen of the State is to be equally treated and is to enjoy protection; that the respondent may be directed to sale the said property to the petitioner after negotiation instead of putting the same in open auction, and that the petitioner is ready to pay the market price.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that this is public property and cannot be sold after negotiation, and that the petitioner can also participate in the open auction at the time of bidding.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and record of respondents.

6. If the earlier management, had committed any illegal acts, the same cannot be made as precedents. The property relates to public exchequer, which cannot be deprived of securing more money by selling the property without advertising the same in an open auction and only through negotiation. The illegal acts cannot be certified by this court as there are serious allegations on both the earlier managements that they had struck many underhand deals and sold the valuable properties for meagre amount. Even otherwise the property should be sold in an open auction after advertising the same to get the maximum price of the said property in order to collect the land, which is to be distributed to the creditors and to secure their interest for which the Liquidation Board has been constituted; there is no discrimination as one wrong cannot be made precedent for issuing the direction to oblige subsequent wrongs. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner claims that he is ready to purchase the property at the market price, which he can do by participating in the auction proceedings and can offer the rate in competition and then can purchase the same. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. This petition having no merits is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./A-223/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.