1985 PLP 548 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Auction of rights for holding cattle fair‑‑Local Body's departing from advertised auction and making a negotiated deal, challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑Procedure adopted by local body depriving others from participating in auction, held, irregular‑‑Order impugned in Supreme Court‑‑Leave granted to consider whether in absence of any rule or law on subject, local body was within its rights to enter into a contract either by negotiation or by auction, with regard to disposal of its property and rights therein; and no provision of law having been infringed, whether in circumstances of case, a declaration could be sought in Constitutional jurisdiction. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate and Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 26th November 1980. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑10‑1980, whereby the auction of the rights to organize cattle fair within the limit of Zilla Council, Sialkot in favour of the petitioner was declared to be without lawful authority.

2. The first auction of the rights for holding cattle fair took place on 18‑8‑1975. The highest bidder did not follow up by depositing 1/10th of the bid money and a re‑auction had to take place. It did take place on 9‑9‑1979. The rights as advertised for auction were for two years. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. He gave two bids, one for the period of two years and the other conditional on his being granted the same rights for a period of three years. The authorities accepted his bid for three years. The petitioner invoked the Constitu tional jurisdiction for challenging the acceptance of the highest bid of the petitioner on the ground that he had been by deceitful methods prevented from participating in the auction, that the auction was advertised to be held for rights of two years but in fact the petitioner was given the rights to organize and hold cattle fair for three years. Such a departure from the advertised suction and what came to be a negotiated deal was according to the writ petitioner in violation of the law and amounted to deprivation of valuable rights of the petitioner.

3. The learned Judge in the High Court gave no finding that the writ petitioner was prevented by deceitful means from participating in the auction. No law was referred to or relied upon for declaring the auction in favour of the petitioner as invalid. What was observed was that "the procedure adopted by respondents 1 and 2 in concluding the so‑called auction in favour of respondent No.4 was irregular as it deprived the petitioner and many others from participating in the auction".

4. This petition is shown to be barred by 41 days which has been explained by the learned counsel as being on account of an intra‑Court Appeal having been filed and if the period for those proceedings is excluded the petition is within time.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any rule or law on the subject the local body was within its rights to enter into a contract either by negotiation or by auction with regard to the disposal of the property and rights therein. As long as no provision of the law was infringed none from the public could come forward to claim the declaration as was sought for by the writ petitioner by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court.

8. We find that the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner concerns the determination of the jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal. The petitioner shall furnish security of Rs.2,000 towards costs. M. I. Leave granted.