Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2120 2013 SLD 2120 2013 PLD 133
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 5326 of 2005, heard on 22nd May, 2012
MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J
Ali Sibtain Fazli and Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner. Mian Muzaffar Hussain for
Respondents

Ch. IRSHAD ALI SAJID

VS

DIRECTOR GENERAL, Lahore DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Legitimate expectation, doctrine of--- ----Applicability---Such doctrine is recognized doctrine in legal parlance but rationale for implementing the doctrine is that if decision or action taken by authority is conveyed to its beneficiary. Council of Civil Services Unions and others v. Minister for the Civil Service (1948) All ER 953; Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) All ER 346 and National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunthan and others (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 66 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Legitimate expectation, doctrine of---Applicability---Auction of plot---Petitioner was declared the highest bidder, who had deposited required amount after the bid but later on Authority rejected his bid without assigning any reasons to him---Plea raised by petitioner was that on the basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation it was his right to get the plot in question---Validity---Decision of Authority was not conveyed to petitioner and as such he could not claim that Authority assured him that his bid had been accepted---Case of petitioner did not fall within the ambit of doctrine of legitimate expectation---From year 2001 to 2005, when the Authority had disallowed petitioner's bid the Authority should not have retained amount of petitioner---Even after 7-1-2005, Authority had not shown its willingness to refuse petitioner's amount; it was very easy for the Authority to have refunded the amount by issuing a cross pay order in the name of petitioner and could send the same through postal services---Respondent Authority was bound to pay interest on petitioner's amount, which was lying with it---Period of four years from the date of auction and rejection of bid and also till the petition was heard was not a reasonable time---Respondent Authority was to decide fate of the bid within the period not more than ninety days and as such the Authority was liable to pay interest on bank rate---High Court directed the Authority to refund petitioner's amount along with interest---Petition was dismissed accordingly. Dr. Shoukat Pervez v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492