MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, ARIFWALA and others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 5

' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, has arisen in the circumstances that on 8-5-1994 the petitioners had held an auction for leasing out the right to hold cattle fair for the year 1994-95. Respondents No,1 and 2 being the highest bidders for a sum of Rs,70, 00,000 were formally declared the successful auction purchasers. Having deposited the earnest money to the tune of Rs,70, 00,000 on the same day they were allowed to deposit the security amounting to Rs,1,40,000 within seven days from 8-5-1994, namely, on or before 15-4-1994. However, the auction in their favor was cancelled and the contract was given to respondent No,4. Feeling aggrieved, respondents No,1 and 2 filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was allowed on 27-6-1997 in the following terms:- "The crux of the matter is that respondent No,1 was not at all justified in cancelling the contract of the petitioners and confiscating the amount of Rs,7, 00,000 deposited by them. The order of the Administrator communicated to the petitioners vide Letter No,770/MCA, dated 15-5-1994 forfeiting their amount of Rs,7,00,000 is declared without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Consequently the petitioners are entitled to the refund of Rs,7, 00,000 deposited by them with the respondent Municipal Committee. Respondent No,1 is accordingly directed to refund the same to the petitioners. As far as prayer of the petitioners for grant of interest on the said amount is concerned, I am not inclined to allow the same."

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. The timeframe with regard to the requisite deposit of the balance amount is traceable to clause 11 of the agreement between the parties executed on 8-5-1994. The learned Judge of the High Court, who decided the case, after perusing the record of the Municipal Committee, Arifwala recorded the finding that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to deposit the balance amount of security till 15-5-1994. We have also examined the record in general and the agreement dated 8-5-1994 in particular and reached the same conclusion. The execution of the agreement, dated 8-5-1994 was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The sole contention raised by him was that under the rules respondents Nos.1 and 2 were liable to deposit the balance amount within three days of the acceptance of the bid and the period of seven days mentioned in the agreement was immaterial and had no legal status. The contention cannot prevail in the face of the unchallenged agreement dated 8-5-1994 whereby respondents Nos.1 and 2 were allowed to deposit the balance amount till 15-5-1994. The appellants being a party to the agreement, dated 8-5-1994 were bound by its terms and the stance with regard to clause 11 thereof taken by them amounts to approbation and reprobation which is not permissible. Their stance as well as the lightening rapidity with which the contract was awarded to respondent No,4 go a long way to support the assertion of the successful bidders that they were ready and willing to deposit the balance amount and had also visited the office of the appellants for the purpose on 15- 5-1994 but were not allowed to deposit the amount,. The methodology adopted by the appellants to sideline the successful bidders and award the contract to respondent No,4 without observing the codal formalities leaves much to be desired and no words are strong enough to deprecate the same. The entire exercise was tainted with mala fides; therefore, interference by the High Court as justified and cannot be set at naught on any technical ground. There is, no need to advert to the remaining parameters of the leave granting order as the same were not touched by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appeal stands dismissed with costs.