Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.919/R of 1978, decided on 8th July, 1986.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, invocation of‑‑Locus standi of petitioner‑‑Mere right of petitioner to bid at auction of evacuee property or offering of bid which remained unaccepted by competent Authority, held, would carry no locus standi for such petitioner to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

‑‑‑S.2‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Auction of evacuee property‑‑Confirmation of‑‑Where there was power to confirm or not to confirm auction of evacuee property, that power, held, must he exercised by authority vested with such power‑‑Auction property in dispute having not been confirmed by competent Authority, petitioner claiming such property would have no locus standi in the matter to challenge such order in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where petitioner had no locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction in certain matter, High Court, held, would refuse to examine any contention raised by such petitioner in that respect.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioners.

Mian Nusratullah for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Sadiq Hayat Khan Lodhi for the Settlement Department.

Date of hearing: 8th July, 1986.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was a bidder at an auction and whose bid had not been confirmed by the competent authorities in respect of evacuee land.

2. It is consistent view of the superior Courts that a mere right to bid at the auction or offering of a bid which had not been accepted in exercise of discretionary powers, does not clothe such a person with a right to maintain a constitutional petition. The fact that the petitioner's bid was not confirmed is beyond dispute on the basis of the record produced at the hearing.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to argue that since the matter went up before the Deputy Commissioner thrice and mutation of auction was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, therefore, that should be construed to amount to confirmation of auction by the competent authority. I am afraid I am unable to agree with the proposition. Where there is a power to confirm or not to confirm the auction that power must be exercised by the authority vested with that power. The Deputy Commissioner .who was the competent authority has recorded a clear finding vide order, dated 13‑8‑1978 that the auction had not been confirmed. No subsequent event of consequence has been relied upon favouring the petitioner's contention. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has no locus stands in the matter.

4. However, in order to find out whether respondents were not in collusion with the departmental functionaries in getting away with an unlawful benefit, I had called upon the Settlement Department to be of assistance. Mr. Sadiq Hayat Khan Lodhi, Advocate has appeared to inform that the rates charged from respondents 2 and 3 who were, Jammu and Kashmir refugees are in conformity with the instructions, dated 30‑4‑1978 and subsequent instructions, dated 21‑11‑1978 for the charging of sale price at the rate of Rs.10 per produce index unit. He submits that the interest of the compensation pool thus stands fully protected in conformity with the instructions which govern the case.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter, I am not called upon to examine any contention being raised on his behalf. The result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs.

H . B . T . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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