CH. IRSHAD ALI SAJID versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Article 199 Constitutional Petition Valid Expectation, Implementation Theory Plot petitioner's auction was declared as the highest bidder, which deposited the required amount after the bid, but the authority later rejected his bid without giving any reason. Due to which the applicant submitted. It was their right under the law of legitimate expectation to bring this question to the fore. The authority's decision was not conveyed to the applicant, and so he could not claim that the authority had assured him that his bid had been accepted and did not appear in the applicant's case. From the years of 2001 to 2005, when the authority rejected the applicant's bid, the authority should not have retained the applicant's money, even after 1 7 1 2005, the authority applied the applicant's money. Did not agree to the denial. It was very easy for the Authority to issue refunds by issuing cross pay orders in the name of the applicant and to send the money through Postal Services; the respondent authority was obliged to pay interest on the applicant's money, The auction and bid were rejected for four years from the date of hearing and unless the petition was heard the appropriate response was not to respond. The respondent authority had to decide the fate of the bid for more than ninety days and thus pay the authority. Was responsible for Interest on Bank Rate The High Court directed the Authority to refund the applicant's interest with interest, under which the application was dismissed. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
