PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through The Chief Conservator Of Forests, Punjaband Others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the unilateral cancellation of a timber auction sale. The respondents were the highest bidders at a public auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer on June 5, 1978, which bids were formally accepted on June 7, 1978. Subsequently, the Chief Conservator of Forests unilaterally cancelled the transaction. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could unilaterally cancel a completed sale transaction without lawful justification. The Supreme Court held that since the sale transaction was fully completed, the Chief Conservator had no right or scope in law to cancel it unilaterally, especially when the grounds urged before the Supreme Court were neither part of the original cancellation order nor raised before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that completed government auction sales cannot be arbitrarily undone.
- Can a competent authority unilaterally cancel a completed public auction sale transaction?
- Whether a plea not raised before the High Court or in the original order can be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--The respondents were the highest bidders at the public auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat, petitioner No.2, on 5-6-1978 for the sale of lots of timber. The bids were accepted by petitioner No.2 on 7-6-1978 and he directed the respondents to deposit the balance-price on or before 25-6-1978 and remove the timber by 5-8-1978. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, petitioner No.1, however, unilaterally cancelled the transaction of sale by an order dated 20-6-1978.
2. Lahore High Court on being moved by respondents in a Constitu--tional petition set aside the impugned order of the first petitioner on the ground that the sale-transaction in respondents favour had already been completed and the first petitioner had no right in law to cancel it. , Petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, and the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that since some of the respondents had failed to deposit the balance-price, the first petitioner, could competently set aside the sale-- transaction.
3. But surely this was not the reason shown in the impugned order, nor was such a plea advanced before the High Court. Even otherwise, this plea has no support in the record before us. The High Court has very rightly held that since the transaction of sale was otherwise complete, there was no scope in law for the first petitioner to unilaterally cancel the transaction.
4. For these reasons, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.