Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 231‑R of 1981, decided on 10th March, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 25‑10‑1981I of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 56/R. of 1981)
-----Para. 19 read with Para. 1(e) "Competent authority"‑Conflict existing between para. 19 and definition of "competent authority" in para. 1 (e)‑‑Former must prevail‑Competent authority, hence, held, Committee as provided in para. 19 and not Deputy Administrator, Resi dual Property‑ [Interpretation of statutes].
-----Para. 19‑Appeal‑Review‑Committee, held, not conferred any power of appeal or review over that of Deputy Administrator in cases like one in hand‑ [Appeal (civil)‑Review].
----Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑New point‑Question not raised before High Court, held, could not be agitated before Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings.
Samad Mahmood Advocate, Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 25‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Cons titutional petition arising out of disposal of a property under the Evacuee Laws, was dismissed.
According to the learned counsel, the facts strictly relevant for this petition are, that the building site in dispute being available property; was put on auction on 18‑5‑1981, in accordance with a scheme pre pared by the Provincial Government. The petitioner was the highest bidder of Rs. 31,000 against the reserve price of Rs. 24,000. The committee supervising the auction not being competent finally, to accept the bid, referred the case under paragraph 19 of the scheme to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) for the acceptance/confirmation. The petitioner waited for the confirmation by the Deputy Ad ministrator, when he received the information that a committee cons tituted under the amended paragraph 19 (2) of the Scheme had refused to confirm the auction in his favour. Accordingly, he moved a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said refusal, which was dismissed on 25‑10‑1981. The petitioner has how sought leave to appeal.
The learned counsel has contended that under the amended para graph 19(1) of the Scheme the "Competent Authority" would be empowered to refuse final confirmation/acceptance of the bid offered by the petitioner. And, the expression "Competent Authority" defined in para 1(e) of the Scheme means the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property). Therefore, refusal by the Committee was without lawful authority. In any case, he further contended, even if it be assumed that two authorities were constituted under para. 19 of the Scheme to confirm or reject an auction, a reason able method of resolving the conflict would be, that the matter should first go before the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) and if he refuses to accept the highest bid, the Committee would then be competent to overrule him (the Deputy Administrator). The paras. 1(e) and 19 of the Scheme (as amended) relied upon read as follows :‑‑
In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires
(e) "Competent Authority" means:
(i)Where the disposal of hotels, industrial concerns and cinema houses (allotted by the Industries Rehabilitation Board is involved, the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties);
(ii)Where the disposal of industrial concerns (not allowed by the Indus. trial Rehabilitation Board) houses, shops and building sites is involved, and such properties are transferable by negotiation, the Administrator (Residual Properties) of the area concerned; and
(iii) Where the disposal of industrial concerns (not allotted by the II1dUS tries Rehabilitation Board) houses, shops and building sites is involved, the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) of the area within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
19.Acceptance or refusal of bid.‑(1) No bid below the reserve price shall be accepted. However the competent Authority may refuse to accept the highest bid without assigning any reasons.
(2)(a) If the highest bid offered for a house, shop, unregistered Industrial concern or building site, situate within the urban limits of District Headquarters is not less than its reserve price, it may be accepted by the Committee to be constituted in this behalf by the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties)
Provided that where the reserve price is above Rs. one lac (Rs. 1,00,000), the bid may be accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue (Resi dual Properties);
(b) if the highest bid offered for a house, shop, unregistered Industrial concern or building site situate in arears other than those mentioned n clause (a) is not less than its reserve price, it ,may b e accept ed by: .
(i) the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), if the reserve price does not exceed Rs. 5,,000 ;
(ii) the Administrator (Residual Properties), if the reserve price exceeds Rs. 5,000 and is not above Rs. 50,00
(iii) the committee constituted by the Member, Board of Revenue (Resi dual Properties), under clause (a) if the reserve price exceeds Rs. 50,0(0;
(c) if the highest bid offered for a registered industrial concern, cinema house or hotel is not less than its reserve price, it may be accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties)."
The definition of "competent Authority" in para. 1 (e) of the Schem cannot be considered in isolation of the "context" of the other relevant provisions for purposes of which the definition clause has to be read. This is obvious from the opening words of paragraph 1 of the Scheme which requires that the definition is to be applied only subject to the relevant "context". Para. 19 clearly creates and defines "competent Authority" for different purposes relatable to the auction‑in some cases differently from what is provided in the definition paragraph The provisions contained in 19 would thus on account of the rider contained in para. 1 paragraph (e) "context", .override the definition clause if there is conflict.
.
In the present case, there is no denying the fact that there being conflict between para. 19 and definition in paragraph 1 (e) the former would prevail. The "competent Authority" in this case, therefore, would be the Committee as provided in paragraph 19 of the Scheme and not the Deputy Administrator, Residual Property.
The alternative argument has also no force. No support can found for it either from the language or the intention underlying Para. 19 of the Scheme. The Committee was not conferred any power o review or appeal over that of Deputy Administrator in cases like the present one.
The learned counsel also tried to argue a new point, namely, that the refusal to accept the petitioner's bid was signed by two Members out o three while under the law, it should have been signed by all the three. This question not having been raised before the High Court, we have refused permission to the learned counsel to raise it before us.
There is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly 'dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer