' SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.--- Through this writ. Ehsan Ullah/petitioner has prayed that letter dated 12-7-2010 whereby the Divisional Superintendent and Divisional Engineer P.R. Railways Lahore have restored the allotment of the suit Quarter No,17/56. Baja Line Colony Lahore be declared to have been passed with mala fide intention and without lawful authority with the further prayer to direct respondents Nos.3 to 8 to deliver the vacant possession of the aforesaid quarter to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ehsan Ullah/petitioner is working as Gangman in Pakistan Railways for the last more than seven years. He moved an application for allotment of Quarter under the Sublet/Informer Policy to the Divisional Superintendent P.R. Railways Lahore/ respondent No,3 stating that Jahanzeb/respondent No,9 being allottee of Quarter No,17/56, Baja Line Colony Lahore had given the quarter on rent to some unauthorized person and he is receiving rent from him. He also prayed for the allotment of the said quarter to him. Respondent No,3 conducted inquiry in which the subletting was proved and vide letter/notice dated 12-10-2009 bearing No,717- W/734 (sublet) the said quarter was cancelled from the name of previous allottee/Jahanzeb/ respondent No,9 and the same was allotted in the name of the petitioner. As per policy, the suit quarter was to be got vacated from respondent No,9 and disciplinary action under E&D Rules was also to be initiated against him within seven days of the cancellation. However, respondents Nos.3 and 4 did not take any such action against him. On 31-10-2009 the petitioner filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against respondents Nos.1 to 4 which is sub judice before the court of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore wherein the respondents were restrained to cancel the allotment of Quarter No,17/56 Baja Line Colony from the name of the petitioner. In their written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4, they admitted the allotment of the suit quarter in the name of the petitioner with the contention that vacation notice has been served upon the defaulter and the quarter would be got vacated after availability of police force but instead of said admission, respondents Nos.3 and 4 did not get vacated the suit property from Jahanzeb/respondent No,9 who also filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents No, 1 to 4. However, no restraining order was passed by the court in his favour and against respondents Nos.1 to 4. On the application of Ehsan Ullah/petitioner under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., case F.I.R. No,55/2010 dated 12-6-2010 was registered against respondent No,9 and sublettee of the suit quarter under the orders of the learned Justice of Peace.
Consequently Jahanzeb/respondent No,9 and one Rashid/sublettee were arrested. Later on they were bailed out by the court of the learned Special Judge Central Lahore. During this period, Jahanzeb/respondent No,9 presented notice dated 12-7-2010 bearing No,717/W/734 (Sublet) whereby the allotment of the suit quarter was again restored in his name by respondents Nos.3 and 4. Hence, this writ.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 8 contested the writ petition vide their reply/parawise comments in which it is contended that the petitioner has already challenged the notice dated 12-7-2010 in the court of the Civil Judge Lahore which is still pending adjudication there. This being so, he cannot simultaneously challenge the same matter before this court through writ; that the present writ petition has been filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive just to harass and pressurize Pakistan Railways/respondents. On facts, it is admitted that the petitioner is an employee of Pakistan Railways as Gangman for the last so many years. Suit Quarter No,17/56, Baja Line Colony Lahore is in occupation of Jahanzeb/respondent No,9. The petitioner moved an application for allotment of the said quarter which was cancelled from the name of respondents No,9 and allotted to the petitioner. However, at present he has been allotted another quarter in lieu of the suit quarter. The suit quarter has been again allotted to respondent No,9. Respondents tried to get vacated the suit quarter but did not succeed despite repeated efforts. Jahanzeb/respondent No,9 also filed civil suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 4 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge Lahore in which no injunctive order has been issued against the respondents.
The petitioner has also filed contempt petition against notice dated 12-7-2010 in the court of the Civil Judge Lahore which is pending adjudication there. It is asserted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. The same may be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos.3 and 4 have not heard the petitioner's view point before issuing the impugned notice dated 12-7-2010 whereby allotment of respondent No,9 was restored. According to the policy of Pakistan Railways, if the quarter is cancelled from the name of the allottee on the ground of sublet, the same cannot be allotted to the defaulter. During pendency of the restraining order passed by the learned Civil Judge Lahore, respondents Nos.3 and 4 were not competent to allot the suit quarter again in the name of respondent No,9. It is sheer violation of the injunctive order issued by the court as well as the allotment rules. Respondents have also not taken any disciplinary action against respondent No,9.
Instead they have restored the allotment of the suit quarter to him by misusing their official position. Even during inquiry conducted by the local police, it was proved that respondent No,9 has subletted the suit property. It is alleged that after registration of case, the respondents' department have joined hands with respondent No,9 and have not proceeded even to seal the said quarter which has resulted in great miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ may be accepted and the relief prayed for be granted to the petitioner.
' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1988 CLC 1525 (Lahore), PLD 1988 Lah. 325, 2007 SCMR 1240 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), 2006 CLC 1902 (Lahore), 2005 YLR 252 (Karachi), 2007 SCMR 1357 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) PLD 1988 Lah. 243 and 2005 YLR 1212 (Lahore).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Pakistan Railways opposed this writ and strongly defended the impugned order passed by the Pakistan Railways.
' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon 1992 CLC 1122 (Karachi), 2001 PLC (C.S.) 919 (Karachi High Court), 1989 CLC 1204, 1998 PLC (C.S.) 965 and 2008 CLC 1166 (Karachi).
6. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
7. Admittedly Ehsan Ullah/petitioner is working as Gangman in the Pakistan Railways. The suit Quarter No,17/56, Baja Line Colony Railway Power House Mughalpura Road Lahore was cancelled from the name of Jahanzeb and allotted in the name of the petitioner. However, Pakistan Railways remained unable to get vacated the suit quarter from respondent No,9 and to hand over its vacant possession to the petitioner. Probably due to this reason, as per reply of respondents, the petitioner has now been allotted another quarter in lieu of the suit quarter which has been realloted by the Pakistan Railways to respondent No,9.
8. Coming to the legal status of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner being temporary allottee of the Government quarter without delivery of possession cannot claim any vested right in respect of his allotment. Status of the allottee/petitioner is only that of a licensee. The guiding principle being that the decision of the Government in matter of determination of disputes has been exclusively allowed to be examined by the Government or the Committee set up by the Government and the jurisdiction, thus, created is not the one in respect of which the courts could be thought to be invested with powers of any supervisory jurisdiction. The court should also not involve itself into field which is more appropriate for the Committee set up under that law rather than the court.
' The occupation of the Government premises by a Government servant even if allotted, can be no more than a tenancy at will which can be terminated by the Government at any time without any show-cause notice. The petitioner had no statutory right of hearing before the cancellation of allotment and the right of issuing of show-cause notice before the cancellation of allotment was not the absolute right. Factual controversy also cannot be decided by this Court in writ. Jurisdiction.
Citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. In view of above, the order of cancelling the allotment of, the suit quarter from the name of the petitioner cannot be interfered with by E the High Court in the constitutional petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. Estate Officer Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain PLD 1962 SC 75, Imtiaz Hussain v. Government of Pakistan 1992 CLC 1122 Dr. Munir Ahmad M.B.,B.S. Medical Officer v.
Chairman House Allotment Committee, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another 1983 CLC 1783, Director-General Pakistan Coast Guards Karachi v. Mst. Zarina Jamshed 1998 MLD 1879, Miss Rukhsana Soomro and others v. Board of intermediate and Secondary Education Larkana Sindh and others 2000 MLD 145, Dr. Khurshid Bhutto v. Civil Aviation Authority 2001 PLC (C.S.) 919 (Karachi High Court) and Ardeshir R. Cowasjee and others CDGK and others 2008 CLC 1166 (Karachi) relied upon.