PETROSIN PRODUCTS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD V e r s u s FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through SECRETARY PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and
Judge Name: IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHEEMA Judgment Result: Petition dismissed. Other Law Journal References: –s. 2–constitution of Pakistan (1973), art. 199-privatization of liquid Petroleum gas pipelines limited-petitioner’s bid being the highest was approved by board of directors but cabinet committee for privatization did not approve bid of petitioner without assigning any reasons-validity- mere highest bid for property in an auction does not, prima facie, carry vested right to bring a suit nor the same can give rise to constitutional right under art. 199 of the constitution where auction or sale was subject to confirmation by some person or authority, and the same has not been confirmed by that person or authority-respondents were not actuated with any motive or malice against petitioner nor they had acted arbitrarily-respondents had discretion and prerogative to accept or reject the bid and while rejecting offer of petitioner, their decision was neither tainted with malice nor the same carried imprint of illegality on its forehead, inasmuch as, no right or interest in respect of property in question, had accrued to petitioner by his mere participation in the bid nor his qualification as highest bidder per se was sufficient to conclude that his offer was binding on respondents, and they had no option but to accept such bid-respondents were riot bound to assign any reason whatsoever for their refusal to accept the highest bid when public property was put to auction-no person has fundamental right to insist that government must enter into a contract with him-petitioner ad not been able to prove that respondents action in rejecting highest bid of petitioner was not actuated in public interest but was tainted with malice-where any statutory provision either specifically or by inevitable implication excludes application of rules of “natural justice”, then the court cannot ignore mandate of legislature-rules of natural justice can operate only in those areas not covered by any law validly made which is not the case here-petitioner, thus, had no vested right to compel respondents to accept his bid on the sole ground that be was the highest bidder.