JAWED IQBAL Versus D.C.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents in spite of intimation through PCAD. The respondents are hereby proceeded against ex parte.

2. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000 which he deposited as security/earnest money regarding auction of right of collection of tax on transfer of immovable property for the year 1991-92.

3. The facts of the case are that the Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura, on 29-5-1991 put to auction the rights of collection of tax on transfer of immovable property for the year 1991-92. The petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.40,00,000 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000 according to the terms and conditions of the auction as security/earnest money. The said auction was placed before the House for approval or otherwise. The House through Resolution No.2 dated 1-6-1991 did not approve the said auction and it was decided that the same be put to auction again. The petitioner according to of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 became entitled to rye 6(2) the refund of the said amount of security/earnest money deposited by him. The said resolution of the House was placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura who is the controlling authority for approval. The Deputy commissioner observed that if on reauction the highest bid happened to be than the one offered by the petitioner, the members of the Local Council less supported for disapproval of the auction of the petitioner would be responsible for the loss. He, however, approved the resolution and ordered that the right to collect the tax on transfer of immovable property should be put to auction. According to the documents placed on record by the petitioner it appears that an advertisement was published in the Daily "Nawa-i-Wagt" for reauction of the said rights.

4. Respondent No.2 having failed to refund to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,00,000, the petitioner made an application before the Deputy Commissioner on 25-6-1991. He made another application on 24-11-1991. It appears that the Local Council had a second thought and keeping in view the observations made by the Deputy Commissionef while approving resolution No.4 that the members who voted for cancellation of the auction in favour of the petitioner would be responsible for the loss, the auction in favour of the petitioner was again put before the House and got approved and the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 has been confiscated on the assumption that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of lease after its approval.

5. I have gone through the certified copies of the documents placed on the record. Once the auction was in the first instance not approved by the House and it was ordered to be reauctioned through Resolution No.2 which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner became entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs.1,00,000 deposited by him as security and if the local body had on second thought decided to get the said auction approved subsequently from the House, the petitioner was not bound by the same, as such, no right was created, in favour of the Municipal Corporation to forfeit the said amount on the erroneous assumption that after the approval of the said ? auction second time the petitioner was bound to abide by its terms and pay the lease money.

6. The refusal of respondent No.2 to refund to the petitioner the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 is not sustainable. This writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to refund the said amount of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./J-82/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.