Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 53 of 1983, beard on 4th July, 1983.

‑‑ R. 225 (4)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Lease of right to collect octroi‑Auction‑Controlling authority conveying refusal to accept highest bid of petitioner after lapse of thirty days‑Period of lease expiring and authority not contesting claim of petitioner‑Petitioner, held, entitled to hold lease for disputed period and by depositing amount of bid will be entitled to ask for accounts of collection made and to payment of amount found due after accounting.

Zahid Aslam Khan for Petitioner.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for Respondent No. 1.

M. Riaz‑ud‑Din Siddiqui and Shakir Rizvi for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.

The dispute in this petition pertains to lease of the right to collect octroi for the period commencing from 1st July, 1982 to 30th June, 1983. The lease was put to auction and the petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 13,65,000 which was accepted by the Town Committee subject to confirmation by the Controlling Authority/ Deputy Commissioner.

The confirmation was, however, not accorded as it was intimated, vide letter dated 24th August, 1982 that the bid of the petitioner was rejected. The refusal to confirm the bid was challenged in this petition on the ground that under rule 225(4), West Pakistan Municipal Committee Octroi Rules, 1964 the controlling authority is required within 30 days either to confirm the bid or declare that it withheld its confirmation and that in case the controlling authority fails to do either of these things within the prescribed period of 30 days it shall be deemed that the bid has been confirmed. The bid was submitted on Ist of July, 1982 and it was admittedly received in the office of the respondent on 3rd July, 1982. It was argued that under rule 225(4) of the Rules the refusal to confirm the bid was to be made by or before 2nd August, 1982 and that as within this period neither the confirmation was done nor it was declared that the confirmation has been withheld, the bid is to be deemed to have been confirmed. On the above premises it was argued that the order passed on 23rd August, 1982 communicated on 24th August, 1982 was without lawful authority and was ineffective to deprive the petitioner of the lease rights.

2. Now as the period of lease has expired and even the lease for the next year, i. e. 1983‑84 has also been granted to the petitioner by confirming the highest bid offered by him learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has not thought it advisable to proceed with the case on merits as according to him it will be an exercise in futility. As the claim made in this petition is not contested, the petitioner is held entitled to hold the lease for the disputed period. The petitioner, therefore, by depositing the amount of the bid will be entitled to ask for the accounts of the collection made and to the payment of the amount found due after accounting.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 at this stage submits that as the lease was not granted to respondent No. 3 the sum of Rs. 81,000 deposited as security by him in connection with second auction may be ordered to be refunded to him. Learned counsel for respondent No. I has no objection to the grant of this request. The amount of security deposited by him shall, therefore, be refunded to respondent No. 3 within one week. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.