ABDUL AZIZ KYANI Versus PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES BOARD, WAH CANTT
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for the allotment of a plot in an extension scheme at Wah Cantt. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was eligible for allotment under paragraph 3(c) of the relevant housing scheme, given that he already owned a plot or house in Wah Cantt., and whether a subsequent Board resolution dated 10-10-1984 removed this ineligibility retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly disqualified under paragraph 3(c) and that the minutes of the Board relied upon by the petitioner were merely recommendatory, lacked necessary approval, and could not operate retrospectively. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that unapproved recommendations cannot alter eligibility criteria.
- Whether an applicant owning property in a cantonment is eligible for plot allotment under paragraph 3(c) of the housing scheme?
- Do unapproved board minutes or recommendations have retrospective effect to alter eligibility criteria?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the refusal of a plot allotment when the applicant is disqualified under the governing rules?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot in the extension scheme of Lala Rukh No.2, Wah Cantt., but his application was rejected by the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board on the ground that he was ineligible for the same in terms of paragraph 3(c) of the Scheme. It was provided in the relevant paragraph that an officer, who owned a plot or a house in his name or in the name of his wife/husband or dependent children in any housing scheme in Pakistan, was ineligible for allotment in the scheme in question. It is not disputed that the petitioner owned a plot/house in the Wah Cantt. , itself. From such refusal of allotment, which was reflected on account of the absence of the petitioner's name in the list of allottees circulated by the Allotment Committee dated 8‑10‑1984, an appeal was taken by the petitioner to the President, Cantonment Board, which was dismissed on the basis of the petitioner's ineligibility vide paragraph 3(c) of D.O. Part 1 No.168 of 17‑3‑1984, referred to above. Being aggrieved by such decision, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. In support of the constitutional petition, it was urged before the learned High Court that the ineligibility contained in relevant paragraph 3(c) had been later removed by the Board as per its decision dated 10‑10‑1984 and as such the petitioner was entitled for the allotment. The learned High Court, however, found, and rightly so, that the minutes of the Board dated 10‑10‑1984 were in the form of mere recommendation and were not approved by the concerned authorities; in any case the same could not have retrospective effect.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. The finding of the learned High Court, that the minutes of the Board dated 10‑10‑1984 were inoperative for want of approval, unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the said minutes were approved by the Director, Military Lands and in any case no amendment of paragraph 3(c) was shown to have been made pursuant to the resolution of the Board dated 8‑10‑1984. We otherwise find that it is not a fit case for grant of leave.
The petition, which has no force, is dismissed accordingly.
M.I. /A‑226/S Petition dismissed.