2007 PLP 1133 (MLD)

This ICA proceeds against the judgment, dated 27-11-2006 passed by a learned Single Judge, in Chambers, of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.9031 of 2006 filed by respondent No.6 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to re-auction the contract for lease of the property of the said local body fixing Rs.2,00,000 as the reserved price.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the initial contract was awarded to his client in the year, 2000 and as such by virtue of section 196 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, will continue to take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the said Ordinance. Learned A.A.-G. who has put in 'appearance on Court call, on the other hand, draws our attention to the provisions of section 124 of the said Ordinance as also the Punjab Local Government (Property) Rules, 2003. He opines that in case of an inconsistency the provisions of the Ordinance are to prevail.

3. We have considered the said submissions of the learned counsel and the learned Law Officer. Section 124 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, lays down in mandatory terms that immovable properties of local Governments shall not be sold or permanently alienated. However, an exception has been made in the proviso to the effect that such properties may be given on lease through competitive bidding by public auction. Rule 16 of the Punjab Local Government (Property) Rules, 2003, provides that the immovable property of a local Government shall be given on lease through a competitive bidding and procedure prescribed in Rule 9 (2) has been made applicable mutatis mutandis in the matter of the giving on lease of the property of the local Government.

4. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel, section 196 of the said Ordinance provides for repeal of the several legislative enactments mentioned in subsection (1) thereof. The reliance of the learned counsel is on subsection (2) of the said section

196. We have examined the said provisions and we do agree with the learned Law Officer that, inter alia, a document or agreement made shall not be affected provided it is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Ordinance. The learned counsel is insisting that under the said agreement, the lease granted in, the year, 2000 can be extended by the respondent-Local Government. However, section 124 read with the said Rules framed under the said Ordinance binds a Local Council to lease out the property only through competitive bidding in an open auction. This is what the impugned judgment precisely directs the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to do. We have noted with concern that the said judgment was passed in presence of all concerned on 27-11-2006 and still the said judgment has not been complied with.

5. The ICA is dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who shall proceed to comply with the judgment, dated 27-11-2006 of the learned Single Judge and file a compliance report within six weeks to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. F.B./J-4/L Appeal dismissed.