Accommodation of government | Dismissing the interim stay on the government accommodation in a writ, the High Court held that the ingredients of stay were not fulfilled and the allotment was canceled before the stay was granted. 2024 C L C 64

Dismissing the interim stay on the government accommodation in a writ, the High Court held that the ingredients of stay were not fulfilled and the allotment was canceled before the stay was granted.
2024 C L C 64

، رٹ پٹیشن میں عدالت نے فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے مدعیہ (مسماة ماہی سلطان) کے حق میں جاری عبوری حکم امتناعی کو کالعدم قرار دیا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ چونکہ مدعیہ کی سرکاری رہائش کی الاٹمنٹ مقدمہ دائر کرنے سے پہلے منسوخ ہو چکی تھی، اس لیے ان کے پاس کوئی قانونی جواز نہیں تھا۔ نتیجتاً، رٹ پٹیشن منظور کرتے ہوئے عدالت نے مدعیہ کے حق میں جاری کردہ عبوری حکم امتناعی اور سابقہ حالت کی بحالی کے حکم کو منسوخ کر دیا۔

عدالت نے ریمارکس دیے کہ جب الاٹمنٹ پہلے ہی منسوخ ہو چکی ہو تو مدعیہ کے پاس مقدمہ دائر کرنے کا کوئی قانونی جواز نہیں تھا۔ عبوری حکم امتناعی جاری کرنے کے لیے بنیادی شرائط پوری نہیں ہوئیں کیونکہ مدعیہ کے حق میں کوئی ابتدائی کیس نہیں بنتا تھا۔ اس کے علاوہ، عدالت نے کہا کہ فریقین کی رضامندی یا خاموشی سے عدالت کا دائرہ اختیار بڑھایا نہیں جا سکتا، اور مدعیہ کو اپنی شکایات کے ازالے کے لیے صحیح فورم سے رجوع کرنا چاہیے تھا۔

مسماة ماہی سلطان نامی خاتون کو سرکاری رہائش گاہ الاٹ کی گئی تھی، لیکن کچھ وجوہات کی بنا پر ڈپٹی کمشنر باجوڑ نے اس کی الاٹمنٹ منسوخ کر دی۔ ماہی سلطان اس فیصلے سے ناخوش ہو کر عدالت میں ایک مقدمہ دائر کرتی ہیں، جس میں وہ رہائش کی بحالی اور ڈپٹی کمشنر کے فیصلے کے خلاف حکم امتناعی مانگتی ہیں۔ ابتدائی طور پر، عدالت ان کے حق میں عبوری حکم امتناعی جاری کر دیتی ہے، جس کی بنیاد پر وہ رہائش کی بحالی کی درخواست کرتی ہیں۔

تاہم، عدالت میں یہ بات سامنے آتی ہے کہ ماہی سلطان کی رہائش کی الاٹمنٹ مقدمہ دائر کرنے سے پہلے ہی منسوخ ہو چکی تھی۔ چنانچہ ان کے پاس قانونی طور پر کوئی ابتدائی کیس نہیں تھا۔ عدالت یہ بھی قرار دیتی ہے کہ عبوری یا مستقل حکم امتناعی تبھی جاری کیا جا سکتا ہے جب قانونی حقوق واضح ہوں، جو اس معاملے میں نہیں تھے۔

نتیجتاً، عدالت نے عبوری حکم امتناعی کو غیر قانونی قرار دیتے ہوئے منسوخ کر دیا اور ماہی سلطان کو مشورہ دیا کہ وہ اپنی شکایت کے ازالے کے لیے مناسب فورم سے رجوع کریں۔

2024 C L C 64

[Peshawar (Mingora Bench)]

Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Shahid Khan, JJ

The DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAJAUR and others----Petitioners

Versus

Mst. MAHI SULTAN and another----Respondents

Writ Petition No.95-M of 2023, decided on 18th May, 2023.

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act (II of 2018)---

----Ss.7(5) & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Allotment of Government accommodation---Removal of encroachments and eviction of unauthorized occupant---Scope---Allotted quarter was cancelled from the name of the respondent---Being aggrieved, she filed a declaratory suit with permanent and mandatory injunction against the Deputy Commissioner---Interim injunction was issued in favour of the respondent---Validity---Record was suggestive of the fact that suit was filed on 24.12.2022 whereas the allotment in favour of respondent/plaintiff was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13.12.2022 and as such, the date on which the suit was filed, the respondent/plaintiff was not the legal allottee of the disputed quarter---Impugned order dated 13.01.2023 was passed on the application of the respondent/plaintiff, whereby she had sought restoration of possession of the quarter in question on the plea that there was an interim injunction order in her favour---For grant of an injunction either perpetual or temporary and for that matter mandatory, the co-existence of three essential ingredients was sine qua non---Respondent/ plaintiff must place before the Court a prima facie case pertaining to her legal rights, character/status---When the allotment had been cancelled earlier to the institution of the suit then the respondent/ plaintiff even on the date of filing of the suit had no prima facie case in her favour rather it required recording of evidence, if at all, to be resolved, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and in absence of one of the ingredient i.e., prima facie case, the other ingredients i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss lost its significance---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, in circumstance.

Mian Hakim Ullah and 2 others v. Additional District Judge/ Tribunal, Nowshera and 4 others 1993 SCMR 907 and Puri Terminal Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Railways, Islamabad and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1092 rel.

(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act (II of 2018)---

----Ss.7(5) & 11---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 94(e) & 151---Ante status quo, issuance of---Allotment of Government Accommodation---Grant or issuance of ante status quo order/impugned order by the tribunal is very rare under the provisions of Section 94 (e) read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) for which, the existence of two essential ingredients is one of the requirements---When the order of confirmation of the ad-interim injunction was issued, admittedly, the respondent/ plaintiff was not in possession of the quarter, therefore, in no way, the respondent/plaintiff was entitled for ante status quo for lack of exceptional circumstances for the purpose of grant of extra-ordinary relief in favour of the respondent/plaintiff---Undoubtedly, the cancellation of allotment had not been disputed by the respondent/plaintiff either through appeal or through petition before the High Court and for that matter through her suit before the Tribunal, for which, an appropriate remedy had already been provided in the statute for an aggrieved person and the respondent/plaintiff might have approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance---Thus, the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal in the matter was not legally justified and the impugned order for grant of ante status quo was not in consonance with the provision of S. 94 of C.P.C.---Hence, the impugned orders and filing of the suit before the Tribunal could not be sustainable---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, in circumstance.

Raja Al Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others 2007 SCMR 741 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Writ petition---Extraordinary jurisdiction---Scope---Jurisdiction cannot be extended or inferred on a forum even with permission, no objection or acquiescence of a party.

Khawaja Salah-ud-Din, A.A.G. for Petitioners.

Muhammad Waqas and Haya Khan for Respondent No.1.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.