2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.

This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, is directed against the order passed by the High Court on 23-2-1999, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. l was accepted.

2. The necessary facts, forming the background of the present appeal are that the appellant is serving as Junior Scale Stenographer in Grade B-12 for the last 16 years. It is claimed by the appellant that Quarter No. 14-E, situate in Staff Colony, Mirpur, was allotted to him on September 5, 1994. It is alleged that one Qammar-ud-Din forcibly occupied the quarter in dispute and filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Mirpur and got an interim injunction. However, the same was afterwards vacated. An appeal was filed before the District Judge which was dismissed. Later on the said Qamar-ud- Din was transferred to Bhimber. However, he handed over the possession of quarter in dispute to Raja Muhammad Yunus, respondent No.1 herein, who was an employee of Education Department serving in Grade B-16. Respondent No.1 according to the appellant through underhand means by suppressing the facts got the allotment of quarter in dispute on March 29, 1997. The appellant brought the matter to the notice of Chairman Allotment Committee that as the quarter in dispute was .allotted to him in 1994 and respondent No.l was not entitled to the allotment of 'E' type quarter, the Chairman recalled the allotment order. Respondent No.1 Raja Muhammad Yunus, on July 28, 1997, filed a writ petition in the High Court, which as said earlier, was accepted by the High Court vide the order impugned, dated 23-2-1999. It is the aforesaid order of the High Court which is the subject of present appeal. It was vehemently contended by Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the allotment of said quarter was made in favour of appellant on 5-9-1994, and without cancelling the same the allotment was made in favour of respondent on 29-3-1997. Thus, during the subsistence of first allotment without cancelling it the subsequent allotment was a nullity. The learned counsel also argued that the allotment being nullity in favour of respondent No. l the cancelling authority was not obliged to issue any notice to him.

4. While controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, the learned, counsel for. respondent No. 1, strenuously argued that the allotment in favour of respondent No. l was made on 29-3-1997, by the order of Allotment Committee and through the same order the allotment of appellant was cancelled. Since the allotment made in favour of appellant was made by the Chairman Allotment Committee alone, therefore, the same being nullity was cancelled by the Allotment Committee. The learned counsel contended that the allotment existing in the name of appellant stood cancelled and the same was within the knowledge of appellant otherwise he would have taken a plea in the written statement that his allotment being prior in time should not have been substituted by a second allotment.

5. We have given our due consideration to .the arguments raised at the Bar and perused the relevant record. It may be stated that respondent claimed the allotment of Quarter No. 14-E, Staff Colony Mirpur, vide order of Allotment Committee, dated 29-3-1997, and also claimed that he was residing in the aforesaid quarter. The previous allotment existing in the name of appellant on 5-9-1994, was cancelled by the order of Allotment Committee, dated 29-3-1997, vide Annexure 'P/5' appended with the writ petition and by the same order the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.

1. Since the order of allotment in favour of appellant dated 5-9-1994, was made by the Chairman of Allotment Committee, therefore, the same stood cancelled vide order of Allotment Committee, dated 29-3-1997. The Chairman of Allotment Committee was not vested with any jurisdiction to pass the allotment order in favour of appellant as it was only the Allotment Committee which was vested with the jurisdiction to make the allotments.

6. Even otherwise we are of the view that the appellant who was non- applicant before the High Court did not raise any objection in his written statement claiming therein that his allotment being prior in time should not have been cancelled by a subsequent allotment. Be that as it may we are of the considered view that the allotment made in favour of appellant in 1994 was a nullity in the eye of law as the same was made by the Chairman of Allotment Committee in capacity as such and the same was cancelled by the Allotment Committee in 1997. No other point of any substance was urged before us.

7. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it stands dismissed with costs.