2005 PLP 589 (MLD)

The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the Quarter No.3/D in question which is situated in Civil Quarters Colony Sheikhupura was allotted to the father of the petitioner, who was Assistant Head Clerk in the office of respondent No.1 in the year 1991. After the retirement of the father of the petitioner, respondent No.1 allotted the said quarter to the petitioner on 20-9-1992. The respondents have cancelled the allotment of the petitioner qua the quarter in question vide order dated 3-6-1998 and issued the impugned notice to the petitioner to vacate the said house within 14 days and hand over its possession to Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid the rent to the respondents in terms of the rules and regulations of the respondents, therefore, the respondents have no lawful authority to cancel the allotment of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has secured vested right after the allotment of the house in question in the name of the petitioner, therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to cancel the same without notice to the petitioner. In support of his contention he relied upon an unreported judgment dated 18-10-1999 passed in Writ Petition No.832 of 1999.

3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. 4 It is pertinent to mention here that writ petition was fixed before the learned Single Judge on 26-6-1998 and the following order was passed:-- "Similar cases are being placed before a D.B. of this Court. Let this case be listed for hearing before the D.B. along with other connected matters." The following order was passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No.2 of 1998:-- "Notice. In the meantime operation of the impugned order dated 9-6-1998 shall remain suspended." The connected writ petitions were fixed before the D.B. consisting of our brother K.N. Bhandari, J. (as he then was) and one of us (Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.). All the connected writ petitions were dismissed by the D.B. The judgment relied by the counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. In the cited judgment the aggrieved person has filed representation before the Government of the Punjab in which the Deputy Commissioner was directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner vide order dated 22-6-1998, therefore, respondent No.1 has no lawful authority to issue the impugned notice in the cited judgment. In the case in hand the petitioner has not filed any representation before the Government of the Punjab and no restraining order was passed by any higher authority of respondent No.1, therefore, case relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts. Even otherwise we cannot bypass the judgment of the D.B. over the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court. Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that earlier judgment of the equal Bench in the High Court on the question of law is binding upon the Second Bench as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Multi Line Associates' case (1995 SCMR 362). It is also settled principle of law that it is the prerogative of the Competent Authority to allot the Government accommodation to the employee or not and it is not a vested right of any Government employee to retain the house as of right and the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Tahir Hussain's case (PLD 1962 SC 75). Coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the cancellation order dated 3-6-1998 as the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 3-6-1998 as is borne out from the impugned notice dated 9-6-1998. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of the cancellation order as is evident from the contents of the petition and prayer clause. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional petition is not maintainable where vires of the notice has not been challenged as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 SC 360). In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any force in this Constitutional petition therefore, same is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is in possession of the house in question then the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner for 15 days from today so that the petitioner may make some alternative arrangements. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. M.H./A-347/L Petition dismissed.