1994SCMR1951 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Para. 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Non‑hearing of petitioner before his bid was cancelled‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑One of the terms of auction was that petitioner (as successful bidder) was required to pay 25% immediately upon acceptance of bid and the balance within 30 days‑‑‑Petitioner having not fulfilled any of the said two terms had not acquired any vested right entitling him the right of hearing‑‑‑Order of cancellation of petitioner's bid was correct and valid‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1993. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21‑7‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 566/R of 1974, filed by respondent No. 1 against the revisional order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 30‑10‑1973, whereby the petitioner's revision against the transfer of the suit shop to respondent No. 1 was accepted, allowing the same and restoring the transfer of the shop in favour of respondent No. 1.

2. The brief facts are that the suit shop was auctioned on 22‑2‑1960 in favour of one Abdur Razzaq for a sum of Rs.8,

500. Since he did not pay the said price, the auction in his favour was cancelled by an order dated 20‑11‑1967 and it was ordered that the suit shop should be put to auction again. Pursuant thereof, the suit shop was shown in the properties listed for auction. It was factually put to auction on 25‑26‑27/9‑1969. The petitioner gave the highest bid, namely, for a sum of Rs.7,

000. The petitioner failed to deposit 1/4th of the above price as per terms of the auction upon the conclusion of the auction. It appears that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 28‑7‑1972 treated the above auction as cancelled. It seems that after that the suit shop, which was in possession of Abdur Rehman, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondent No. l was transferred to his legal representative i.e. respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through his order dated 3‑8‑1972 under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. Against the above transfer, the petitioner and aforesaid Abdur Razzaq filed separate revision petitions, which were disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner through his above order dated 30‑10‑1973, whereby he dismissed Abdur Razzaq's revision petition, but accepted the petitioner's revision petition. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 filed above writ petition, which was allowed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the cancellation of auction in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through his order dated 28‑7‑1972 was without prior notice to the petitioner, the Settlement Commissioner was justified in setting aside the transfer in favour of respondent No. 1 and restoring the transfer in favour of the petitioner.

4. The above contention is misconceived as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Judge in Chambers. It may be observed that, at the relevant time, para. 21 of Scheme No. VIII provided as follows:‑ "

21. If the successful bidder fails to pay the balance within 30 days as aforesaid the acceptance of his bid shall stand cancelled and the amount of earnest money and the other amount equal to twenty‑five per cent. of the bid money shall also stand forfeited. If the defaulter is a claimant necessary debit entries will be made in his Compensation/Rehabilitation Book in accordance with the procedure laid down in para. 19." Since admittedly the petitioner did not pay any amount towards the bid price after he gave the above highest bid of Rs.7,000, the acceptance of the bid was liable to be cancelled automatically after the expiry of 30 days. No separate, order was required to be passed. In our view, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 28‑7‑1972 can be treated as an intimation to the petitioner, as has been rightly held by the learned Judge in Chambers. In this view of the matter, the transfer of the shop to respondent No. 1 after nearly three years from the date the petitioner gave his bid was in consonance with law.

5. Then it was urged by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari that, in any case, the principle of natural justice required that the petitioner should have been heard before his bid was treated as cancelled in terms of above para. 21 of Scheme No. VIII.

6. The above contention is also untenable as one of the terms of the auction was that the petitioner was required to pay 25% immediately upon the acceptance of bid and the balance within 30 days as per above para. The petitioner having not fulfilled any of the above two terms had not acquired any vested right entitling him the right of hearing. The petition has no merits, Leave is, accordingly, refused. AA./G‑443/S Leave refused.