Syeda SHAHIDA TASLEEM vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others

' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises in the following circumstances.

2. An auction for the rights to excavate stone from Block No,2 of Chak No,48/S.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha was held by the Licencing Authority on 1-4-1992 in which the predecessor of the petitioner, Syed Safdar Hussain Shah, as also Amjad Taqi, respondent No,5, participated offered bids of Rs,6,50,000 and Rs,6,51,000 respectively. According to the petitioners, the highest bid of Rs,6,60,000 was made by their predecessor which was not entertained by the Chairman Licensing Authority who recommended for acceptance of bid of respondent No,5 at Rs,6,51,000. The predecessor of the petitioners complained to the Chairman, Zila Council/Licencing Authority that his bid of Rs,6,60,000 was not entertained by the Acting Chairman and that he was willing to pay Rs,12,00,000 for the grant of lease. The application was forwarded by the Chairman Zila Council to the Licencing Authority who decided to hold negotiate with the bidders as contemplated by rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. While negotiations were in progress, Syed Safdar Hussain, the predecessor of the petitioners met with accidental death. In these circumstances, the Licencing Authority decided that the area should be put to re-auction. This order of the Licencing Authority dated 11-5-1992 was challenged by respondent No,5 by filing an appeal before the Director, Industries and Mineral Development. During the pendency of that appeal, however, the Licencing Authority accepted the application of respondent No,5 for the grant of lease to him on consideration of Rs,7,00,000. The order of the Licencing Authority dated 30-5- 1992 was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal which was dismissed on 18-6-1992. The revision having failed before the Secretary to Government of Punjab on 7-10-1992, the petitioners have now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for .The petitioners has contended that on 11-5-1992, the Licencing Authority itself had on account of death of Syed Safdar Hussain, decided that the rights should be re- auctioned, it could not halie been subsequently withdrawn the said nor could the rights be granted to respondent No,5 through negotiations with which the petitioners were not associated.

4. Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Province of Punjab and another official of the respondents have not opposed this petition and instead have indicated willingness of the Government to re-auction the lease rights. On one of the dates of hearing, Malik Muhammad Akram, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondent No,5 but later on he absented himself.

5. Although there is some dispute between the parties as to whether predecessor of the petitioners had made highest bid of Rs,6,60,000 or not but it is not necessary to resolve the same for. It is a common ground that the bid made at auction was not accepted by the competent authority which instead decided to negotiate with the participants as contemplated by rule 15 of the Punjab Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1990. It is discernible from the record that during the course of negotiations, the predecessor of the petitioners had died with the result that on 11-5-1992, the Licencing Authority decided to reject the bids at auction held on 1-4-1992. This information was conveyed inter alia to the successor of the petitioners vide letter dated 11-51992 (Annex:CI.

Respondent No,5 feeling aggrieved chellenged that order by filing an appeal before the Director, Industries and Mineral Development without waiting for the decision of the appeal, the Licencing Authority on 30-51992 proceeded to withdraw his order dated 11-5-1992 which had been acted upon by issuing notices for re-auction to all concerned including the petitioners as successors of Safdar Hussain.. This action of respondent No,2 was clearly beyond his powers. It is also to be noticed that no reason for withdrawal was stated which too vitiates that impugned order.

8. Be that as it may, even if it be assumed that there was some power vesting in the Licencing Authority to withdraw its previous order, the next question which arises is as to how without associating the legal heirs of Safdar Hussain or the other bidders the Licencing Authority could as a result of some negotiations with respondent No,5 grant him the lease rights for a sum of Rs,7,00,000 in the absence and without knowledge of the petitioners and other contestants. The procedure adopted by the respondents in this behalf is not only violative of rule 15 of the Punjab Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 but also smacks of mala fides. From the order dated 30-5-1992, it is not clear as to what prevailed with the Licencing Authority for recalling the order for re-auction of the rights. Furthermore, how couldthese rights be granted for a sum of Rs,7,00,000 to respondent No,5 when there was a clear offer by the predecessor of the petitioners in his application dated 5- 4-1992 for obtaining the rights for a sum of Rs,12,00,000.

' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 30-5-1992, 18-6-1992 and 7-10-1992 are declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Authorities concerned shall now proceed to re-auction the rights in accordance with law. No order as to costs.