PRIME BUILDERS vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT — 2025 PLD 166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PRIME BUILDERS VS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. O.XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & S.151---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 39, 42 & 55---Contract act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(h) & 10---Transfer of Property act (IV of 1882), S.54---Suit for declaration, direction, cancellation, mandatory/prohibitory injunction and damages---Rejection of offer of highest bidder creating a third party interest in the garb of benefit to public exchequer---Legality---Invitation to treat and binding offer---Difference---Creation of contractual right---Scope---Public auction for sale of plots---authority reserving right to accept or reject the bid/offer without assigning any reason---Scope---Plaintiff being highest bidder deposited earnest money agreeing to twicely increased bid money and was issued letter of acceptance by the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC)---PIDC while rejecting the twicely increased offer of the plaintiff returned his earnest money for creating a third party interest----Plaintiff sought injunction restraining the PIDC from creating third party interest on the ground that the transaction of sale had been completed, which could not be changed by PIDC unilaterally by inclusion of a new competitor, who did not participate in the bidding proceedings---Validity---advertisement of inviting bids for the sale of suit plots/land was an announcement made by PIDC being owner of the suit plots to the public, indicating that it was seeking offers from potential buyers to purchase the suit plots---Such an advertisement was usually an invitation to treat rather than a binding offer, which outlined the process by which interested parties could submit their bids and provide relevant details about the land and the bidding procedure---Subsequent communication of PIDC offering the sale of the suit plots to both the plaintiff and the defendant at a reserved price within a specified time frame, which was accepted by the plaintiff, who communicated its acceptance to PIDC, significantly altered the situation and the complexion of the case, thus, it could not be conclusively determined that letter was merely an invitation to treat---Disposal of government-owned assets needed to maximize public benefit and PIDC was obligated by law to make policy decision rooted in these commercial considerations---Such reservation of authority to accept or reject any or all offers without assigning any reason, did not endow the public functionary with a brazen, unchecked and arbitrary power to reject an offer solely because they possessed or reserved such authority---Such reason would effectively grant government-controlled entities the authority to cancel bids at their own will, leading to potential abuse of power, which could allow arbitrary bid rejections without transparency or accountability, undermining the principles of fairness and openness essential to a competitive bidding process---If bidders believed their offers could be disregarded on a whim, they might be discouraged from participating, leading to an erosion of trust in the system, making it harder to attract serious and reputable entitles/bidders in future transactions---an authority might reserve the right to accept or reject any bid or offer, provided this discretion was exercised with caution, due diligence, and utmost responsibility---Plaintiff sought enforcement of letter, thus, High Court while treating the suit for declaration as suit for specific performance of contract created between the parties directed the plaintiff to deposit the entire sum of bid money in cash with the Nazir of the court along with the accrued mark-up at the tentative rate of 18% per annum on the remaining sale consideration---Plaintiff had made out prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience also laid in his favour and he would suffer irreparable loss in case the corpus of this lis (an immovable property) was not preserved, thus, the application was allowed subject to the condition that if plaintiff failed to deposit the specified amount with the Nazir within the allotted time, the interlocutory application shall stand dismissed.

PRIME BUILDERS vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT — 2025 PLD 166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD