Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, JHELUM And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition challenging the decision of the District Allotment Board, which refused to confirm the petitioner's temporary depot authorisation and instead decided to draw lots pursuant to Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The petitioner, having participated in the drawing of lots and remained unsuccessful, challenged the process after failing to secure the allotment. The core legal questions involve whether a temporary or ad hoc authorisation creates a vested right to confirmation, whether changes in policy through Martial Law Instructions can be judicially controlled, and whether a party participating in a selection process can subsequently challenge it upon an unfavorable outcome. The Supreme Court held that no vested right had accrued from a temporary authorisation, that matters of policy change are not subject to court interference, and that an unsuccessful participant cannot challenge the outcome of a process they voluntarily took part in. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a temporary or ad hoc depot authorisation create a vested right for confirmation by the District Allotment Board?
- Can a change in policy implemented through Martial Law Instructions be interfered with or controlled by the courts?
- Is an unsuccessful participant who voluntarily took part in the drawing of lots permitted to subsequently challenge the result?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner was given authorisation for a depot on a temporary basis subject to confirmation by the District Allotment Board. Subsequently, the District Allotment Board did not consider him - suitable for confirmation and decided to draw lots in accordance with Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The petitioner also participated in the drawing of lots but was unsuccessful. He challenged the decision through Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1977 but the same was dismissed on 12=6-1979 upon the view that no vested right had accrued to the petitioner as he had held the depot only on an ad hoc and temporary basis.
2. It is urged that as the petitioner's temporary authorisation had been given before the issuance of Martial Law Instruction No. 22, his case ought to have been, dealt with under the previous rules and not under the said instructions. We find no force in the contention, firstly, because no vested right had accrued to the petitioner by the temporary authorisation made in his favour, such as could be said to have been saved despite the change in the system; secondly, because the change in the system, if any, was a matter of policy which is not controlled by the Courts, and thirdly, because the petitioner, who has himself participated in the drawing of lots, cannot later challenge the result merely because he remained unsuccessful. The petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.