HAJI Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDY
The petitioners, cattle traders, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing their constitutional petition. The petitioners had historically been awarded contracts for a 'Mal-Piri' (cattle market) by the local authority through negotiation. When the respondent authority decided to put the contract to public auction, the petitioners challenged this, claiming a vested right to the contract due to their long-standing tenure and investment in the premises. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners had a vested right to the contract via negotiation and whether they qualified as 'aggrieved parties' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners possessed no vested right to the contract, as their previous possession was contingent upon the contract itself, and they were not owners of the land. Consequently, they lacked the standing to challenge the auction process. The Court affirmed that a contractor who has historically benefited from negotiated contracts cannot claim a vested right to continue such arrangements, nor does such a history render them an 'aggrieved party' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a public auction.
- Does a contractor who has historically been awarded contracts through negotiation acquire a vested right to continue such contracts?
- Can a party who has no ownership interest in the premises of a business claim to be an 'aggrieved party' to challenge the auction of a contract related to that business?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable by a party lacking a vested legal right to the subject matter of the dispute?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 40, Sind Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Article 19, Schedule II, Sind Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ The petitioners are cattle traders and they have filed this petition for leave to appeal against order, dated 20th May, 1987 of the High Court of Sind, Sukkur Bench passed in Constitution Petition No. D‑140 of 1987.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners are contractors of "Mal Piri" and have been awarded such contracts by respondent No.2 since the past many years. It is contended by them that originally a "Mal‑Piri" was established within the local limits of Rohri Municipality when the petitioners were the main cattle dealers. It was through the persuasion of the Chairman Union Council Ali Wahan and officers of District Administration that the petitioners established "Mal‑Piri" within the local limits of that union council after incurring large expenses on land comprising survey No.274 of Deh Mendo Dero, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur on the understanding that they will always be awarded the contract to that effect by negotiation with the said union council. Thus, the contract of Cattle Piri Ali Wahan was given to them for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 1st July, 1975 in the sum of Rs.11,000 per year by the Deputy Commissioner/ Controlling Authority Sukkur. On the expiry of that period, they were allowed to continue with the same contract for the year 1978‑79 at the increased rate of Rs.37,000. They were further allowed to continue with the contract for another year at the increased rate of 15% in the contract money by the same authority. However, on 28th May, 19F0 respondent No.1 issued a public notice putting the contract to public auction. The petitioners challenged the said notice by way of a Constitutional petition in the High Court of Sind at Karachi. But during the pendency of that petition respondent No.2 again started granting contract to the petitioners by negotiation for the years 1960‑E 1, 1981‑82, 1982‑83, 1983‑84 as well as 1986‑87. Eventually respondent No.2 declined to award contract by way of negotiation and insisted to put the contract to open public auction on 4th June, 1987. This was challenged by the petitioner through Constitutional Petition No. D‑140 of 1987 before the High Court of Sind, Sukkur Bench but their petition was dismissed in limine by the impugned order mainly on the ground that they were not aggrieved parties and as such were not competent to file a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the petitioners had established Cattle Piri in question which was owned and possessed by them and since they had been collecting the Dalali fee through contract by negotiation for a number of years they had acquired vested right to have the same by negotiation. Thus, according to learned counsel there was no justification on the part of the High Court in not considering them as aggrieved parties competent to file a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Next learned counsel, referring to section 40 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with Article 19 of Schedule II of the said Ordinance, argued that respondent No.2 was not at all competent to auction the contract (right of the Dalali fee) of Cattle Piri.
4. These arguments were also advanced before the High Court and had been properly attended to. The petitioners own case is that respondent No.2 had been awarding the contract to them every year and this obviously disentitles them from claiming that respondent No.2 was not at all competent to award such contract. Similarly the record indicated that the petitioners were in possession of lane (survey No.274) with the oral consent of Pakistan Railways who are the red owners of the said Survey number. The petitioners may have constructed the market over the said survey number, but they are not the owners of the same. They were in possession of the premises because they were carrying on business thereof Mal‑Piri so long as the contract was made in their favour. But since they had no vested right in having the contract by negotiation, they cannot be considered as aggrieved parties. ;
5. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
M.I./H‑34/S Petition dismissed.