Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 324 of 1982, decided on 20th October, 1985.

(a) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)--

----S. 43--Jurisdiction--Civil Court--Action taken by Lahore Development Authority not open to challenge in civil Court--Colourful, discriminatory, arbitrary or mala fide, action, held, was not immune from scrutiny of civil Court.

(b) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)--,

---S . 43--Auction--Confirmation of bid depended on discretion of Director-General and no objection could be raised if he found bid to be below price which he thought to be reasonable--Mere fact that in course of one year that Authority took in issuing letters of acceptance, price had appreciated upward, held, was no ground to rescind original order of confirmation of auction--Lahore Development Authority failing to issue letter of confirmation of acceptance of auction to respondent whose bid was accepted but deciding to accept bids in respect of other plots on ground that bidders in those cases had applied for issuing letters of acceptance while remaining bidders including respondents had not done so--No application was required to be submitted for issuing letter as bid offered at auction itself was an application supported by payment of half of price -Action of Authority, held, clearly discriminatory and arbitrary as against respondent and was not justified in circumstances.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

-S. 115--Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975), S. 43- Locus poenitentiae--Bid accepted but no decisive step taken by Lahore Development Authority by issuing letters of acceptance in respect of plots in auction--Authority, held, could not press principle of locus poenitentiae in their favour.

Muhammad Saeed Akhtar for Petitioners.

Mian Munawar Hussain for Respondents.,

Date of hearing: 20th October, 1985.

On 16-11-1977 the respondents offered highest bid for Plots Nos. 7, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 in Hamza Block of Allama Iqbal Town. Their bids were accepted and confirmed the same day by the Director/ General of the Lahore Development Authority. No formal letters were, however, issued to the respondents and subsequently the Director-General who succeeded to the one who had approved the original auction decided to recall the confirmation on a note submitted by an Assistant Director suggesting a fresh auction in the hope of fetching better price. The purchasers brought a suit seeking declaration against the L.D.A. This was decreed on 9-2-1980. The L.D.A. challenged the orders in appeal but the appeal was dismissed on 28-11-1981. The L.D.A. seeks revision of the orders of the Courts below.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that even though the auction was confirmed by the Director-General the confirmation could be revoked at any stage until it was communicated to the persons making the bid. He relies on the principle of locus poenitentiae. The learned counsel also contends that under section 43 of the L.D.A. Act, 1975 the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred.

3. It is correct that the confirmation of a bid depends on the discretion of the Director-General and also that the actions taken by the L . D.A. under the Act of 1974 are not open to challenge in a civil Court. But similarly, it cannot be denied that if the action is colourable, discriminatory, arbitrary or mala fide it is not immune from scrutiny of the civil Court. In the present case there could have been no objection to the orders of the Director-General if he had found the bid to be below the price which he thought to be reasonable. But this was not so as on 16-11-1977 the bid was accepted The mere fact, that, in the course of one year, that the L. I1. A took in issuing letters of acceptance, the price had appreciated upwards is no ground to rescind the original order of confirmation of the auction. Furthermore it is an admitted fact that out of the same bid the L.D.A. decided to accept the bids with regard to Plots Nos. 15 and 16 whose cases could not be distignuished from the remaining plots. The only explanation regarding this discrimination, which has come from the learned counsel is, that, the purchasers of Plots No"' 15 and 16 had applied for issuing letters and that the remaining purchasers had not done so. This is no explanation, as no applications were required to be submitted for issuing letters. The bid offered at the auction itself was an application, supported by payment of half of the price There was. therefore, no justification for the L.D.A. to discriminate against the present respondents. The action of the L.D.A. refusing to issue letters to the plaintiffs/ respondents was clearly discriminatory and arbitrary. The civil Court could, therefore, justifiably intervene and remedy it. As regards the principle of locus poenitentiae it is not attracted in the present case as the decisive steps had been taken by the Lahore Development Authority itself by issuing letters of acceptance in respect of two of the plots in auction which was not divisible. The L.D.A., therefore, cannot press this principle in support of their cases.

4. In view of the above considerations there is no merit in the revision petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

M . Y . H . Revision declined.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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