' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Through, this petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment dated '12-12-2002 whereby Constitution Petition No,D-678 of 1992 filed by respondent was allowed and show-cause notice and cancellation order dated 9-12-1991 were found to be without lawful Authority and of no legal effect.
2. The case of the petitioner as unfolded in the instant petition is that he served in the office of Chief Administrative Officer, Armed Forces Headquarters, both in India and Pakistan. He also held various offices in the Ministry of Defence including Private Secretary to the Secretary to Ministry of Defence from 1948 to 1954. Since he was paid from Defence Service Estimates, as such, he was issued a membership card by Pakistan Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited(predecessor of petitioner) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') in 1969. Thereafter he was allotted a residential plot measuring 1000 sq. Yards on 4-8-1970. He was also allotted a commercial plot bearing No,29-C, Nishat Lane No,5, Phase VI, measuring 200 sq. Yards situated in the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi on 11-1-1973.On 16-11-1997, he was accorded a status of Associate Member of the Society.
3. On 12-1-1991, respondent received two show-cause notices issued by petitioner stating that he was not eligible for the membership and was asked to show cause as to why allotment of both plots should not be cancelled. The respondent filed his reply and stated that scrutiny of his membership qua residential plot was held in 1984 and was found regular. As far as his membership with regard to commercial plot the same was cancelled on 9-12-1991 against which representation was filed which also met the same fate. Both show-cause notice and the cancellation order were assailed before learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No,D-678 of 1992 which was allowed vide impugned judgment.
4. We have heard M/s Nazar Hussain Dhoon, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and K. A.Wahab, learned AOR for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings kf the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Division Bench has not applied its mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the case and impugned judgment is based on mere surmises and conjectures, which has led to miscarriage of justice. According to him, the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner could not be treated as_a person affiliated with the affairs of Federation or Province or legal authorities within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic. Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He next contended that the rights of regular and associate members are distinguishable. A regular member is eligible to apply for residential as well as for commercial plots while associate member is eligible for residential plot only. In support he referred to Bye-Law No,7 of the Society.
6. On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Wahab, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the above contentions and contended that the learned Division Bench of High Court has rightly allowed the petition of respondent by discussing each and every aspect of the matter and the same is unexceptional.
7. As per Bye-Law No,7(iii) of the Society, membership is confined to certain Officers working in Ministry of Defence/Military Finance at the discretion of the Managing Committee. The respondent having held various offices in the Ministry of Defence was issued membership card by the Society in 1969 and was consequently allotted a residential plot measuring 1000 sq. Yards and also a commercial plot bearing No,29-C, Nishat Lane No,5, Phase VI, measuring 200 sq. Yards situated in the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer any provision of the bye-laws of the Society declaring that an associate member is entitled to one plot only while regular member may have a number of plots. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of force. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgment which being unexceptional is maintained.
8. Accordingly, instant petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.