KARACHI, Oct 25: The Sindh High Court has upheld the auction of a prime commercial site by the city government and dismissed the old leaseholder’s petition as misconceived.
The effect of the order was, however, partially suspended till the first week of November in view of a pending appeal moved by the petitioner, Shahid Umer of M/s Americano Dry Cleaners, against an order in a civil suit instituted by him.
“The city government will not part with possession of the property subject to any order passed by the appellate bench of the high court or by the Supreme Court”, a division bench, comprising Justices Sabihuddin Ahmed and Amir Hani Muslim, observed in its order dismissing the writ petition.
Agreeing with the submissions made by Advocates Abbas Ali, K.A. Wahab and Manzoor Ahmed, who appeared for the auction purchaser and the city government, the bench observed that the auction price of Rs94,500 per square yard was “not shocking at all”. It was wrongly led to believe that the 600-square-yard plot had been sold for a paltry total price of Rs 95,000.
The petitioner was in occupation of the property for the last 50 years at a rent of Re 1 per square yard. The city government offered in 2001 to grant him lease for 99 years for a consideration of Rs 25,000 per square yard.
The petitioner questioned the steep rise and the city government decided to auction the lease. He filed a suit against the city government.
Disposing of the suit, an SHC judge said in his order of November 2002: “In view of the fact that security is being furnished by the plaintiff (the petitioner), he shall be entitled to participate in auction without furnishing any security or deposit as well as to submit matching offers as against the highest bids. The amount payable at the fall of the hammer, if any, would be paid along with the subsequent instalment”.
Apparently, the plaintiff did not participate in the auction but did make a matching offer against the highest bid. The auction fetched a price of Rs 94,500 per square yard and the city government contended that the matching offer made by the petitioner was not entertainable after the bid was closed. The plaintiff moved the court in its constitutional jurisdiction against the city government.
The division bench that heard the petition held that the petitioner had not exhausted a more efficacious remedy available to him under the law. In substance, he has sought nullification of a single judge’s order in a civil suit, which was not possible as the high court could not issue a writ against itself.
