Haji MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKARAND
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Controlling Authority to approve an auction bid. The petitioner had submitted a bid for leasing the octroi duty of the Municipal Committee, Jamesabad, which was rejected by the Controlling Authority on the basis that the lack of other participants meant the petitioner's bid could not be considered the highest. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could review its own oral pronouncement before signing the judgment and whether the Controlling Authority acted without lawful authority in withholding approval. The Supreme Court held that High Court judges possess the inherent power to modify or change their decision at any time prior to signing the formal judgment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the auction was subject to the Controlling Authority's discretion under the relevant rules, and as no conditions constrained that discretion, the refusal to approve the bid was legally valid. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a High Court judge change or review an oral pronouncement before signing the final judgment?
- Is the Controlling Authority bound to approve an auction bid for octroi duty in the absence of competing bids?
- Does the Controlling Authority have the discretion to withhold approval for an auction bid under the relevant rules?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The bid given by the petitioner for leasing out octroi duty of Municipal Committee, Jamesabad, was under the rules subject to the approval of the Controlling Authority.
2. He withheld the approval on the ground that no other person bad participated in the auction. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had given the highest bid.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction on grounds none of which was tenable in law. The petition was, at first, allowed by an oral pronouncement, but on their attention being drawn to the relevant rules, the learned Judges with notice to the parties changed their decision and dismissed the writ petition.
4. In support of the petition for leave to appeal, it is urged : (i) that the High Court having announced the order allowing the writ petition could not review the order suo motu and (ii) that the order passed by the Controlling Authority was without lawful authority.
5. There is little merit in either ground. It is well established that learned Judges in the High Court can change their decision before putting their signatures to the judgment. No legal provision to the contrary was cited by Mr. A. H. Pirzada. He was also unable to point out any provision of law under which the Con--trolling Authority was bound to give approval to the auction in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary the rules specifically provide that auction of octroi duty is subject to the approval of the Controlling Authority. No conditions for exercise of the discretion vested in him are provided in the rules.
6. The order passed by the High Court is thus fully warranted in law. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM and otherss vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2004 PLD Lahore 145
- RAHIMYAR KHAN HUDABIYA ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD. Versus PAKISTAN 1997 MLD 2086