2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioners, who are government servants, have filed this petition with the following prayer:

"Under the circumstances it is most humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted while setting aside the impugned terms and conditions for allotment of government Quarters Vide Order No.DHAC-4(2)/2014 dated 19th March, 2014 framed by District House Allotment Committee Skardu by violating/ignoring all procedure and rules laid down for the purpose as well as the same was made back behind the petitioners while keeping them in darkness, which carries no value in the eye of law, having no legal protection and worst method and allotment order of respondents Nos.5 to 12 is liable to be cancel. The impugned Terms and Conditions is also unjust, unlawful, miss-use of power and a stabbing on the lawful rights of the petitioners. Any other relief which this August Court deems fit, just and proper may also graciously be awarded in favour of petitioners in the best interest of justice and equity."

2. Petitioners have averred in the petition that they are occupants of the suit government houses and are entitled to retain the possession thereof. In the opinion of petitioners, the suit terms and conditions regulating allotment of government quarters is wrong in the eye of law as were framed without any consultation with the petitioners. Petitioners have further prayed for cancellation of allotment orders in the names of respondents Nos.5 to

12. So, hereunder, respondents mean respondents Nos.1 to 12 and not respondent No.13. Respondents contested this petition.

3. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the counsel for parties. It is not disputed that petitioners are termed as licensees and never accepted as tenants. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are provincial government and its officials, and in that capacity, are the rightful custodians of the government quarters. So, the question debated before us is that whether there is any legal compulsion on the respondents to frame terms and conditions of allotment of government quarters after consultation with the petitioners? Once it is admitted that petitioners are licensees and not tenants, then the question arises that whether a licensee has any right of forcing the custodians of the government houses, for framing terms and conditions of allotment of such government quarters in accordance with the choice of such licensees? Petitioners did not utter even a single word showing that allotments in the names of respondents Nos.5 to 12 suffered from any illegality etc. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the custodian and the licensee have contractual liabilities and duties to each other, therefore, a writ is never maintainable, questioning such relationship.

4. From plain perusal of proceedings on this file, it is evident that the case is lingering on since 07-04-2014 and within this period, this petition was dismissed in default on 24-09-2014 by the then DB. Then an application (Civil Misc. No.248/2014) was filed by the petitioners for restoration of this petition, but petitioners remained absent and the said petition (Civil Misc. No.248/2014) was also dismissed in default. Then petitioners moved another petition (Civil Misc. No.281/2014) for restoration of the said petition (Civil Misc. No.248/2014). Through order of DB of this Court dated 01-04-2015, petition (Civil Misc. No.281/2014) was allowed and Civil Misc. No.248/2014 was restored. Through order dated 19-08-2015, a DB of this Court allowed Civil Misc. No.248/2014, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand). We find reference of order dated 19-08-2015 in the order sheet dated 21-08-2015 of the office, whereby, it is mentioned that this petition was restored to its original number subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- costs. Instead of presenting this petition before the court, the office has started issuing notices to the parties from 21-08-2015 onwards. Said order sheets of office are silent as to payment of costs, referred in order dated 19-08-2015 of the DB of this Court, passed in Civil Misc. No.248/2014. Obviously, petitioners cannot be heard without payment of the said amount of costs and respondents have every right to recover the said amount, if already not paid. All this shows that petitioners deliberately delayed the proceedings of the case.

5. Petitioners did not submit any case law showing that respondents are bound to frame terms and conditions of allotment of government quarters, after consultation with the petitioners or any other allottee of any other government quarter. In our opinion, a licensee has no right, whatsoever, regarding allotment of any government quarter, except the use of the same until the same is in his possession, in the light of any allotment order of the custodian concerned. The only embargo on the respondents is to make all allotments in strict accordance with the merit of each and every case. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record. SL/55/GB Petition dismissed.