' ATHAR MINALLAH, J. --- The petitioner is an employee of the Ministry of Planning, Development & Reforms, Ccvemment of Pakistan, Islamabad. He applied for allorment residential accommodation by submitting application dated 26.8 1986B. The date of submission of the application was treated as 07.09.1986. The petitioner was allotted a house vide letter dated 02.5.2011. The allotment was subject to vacation. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration. Mandatory and permanent injunction on 04.05.2011. The petitioner claims to have obtained physical possession of the allotted house on 25.8.2014. The accommodation was later on allotted to respondent No 3 vide letter dated 30.9.2014.
The petitioner has. Therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution seeking a direction against the respondents for putting him in possession of the accommodation and cancellation the allotment in the name of respondent No. 3.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the conduct of the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner is already occupying a house on the basis of hiring and the same has been approved by the concerned Department. It is further stated that the petitioner is illegally occupying the official accommodation in respect of which the instant petition has been filed. The respondent No. 2 cancelled the allotment in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The allotment made in the name of the petitioner was in violation of the Rules. The earlier allotment made in favour of the petitioner was based on Rule 29-Act the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 and, therefore, in contravention of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied the allegations made by the learned counsel for the respondents. He, however, could not satisfy this Court that the allotment earlier made in favour of the petitioner was in accordance with the law. No plausible explanation has been given on behalf of the petitioner regarding the legality of the earlier allotment made in his favour. The fact that the petitioner is occupying the official accommodation and at the same time is also availing the facility of hiring another accommodation is not in dispute. This conduct is sufficient to refuse the relief sought under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to why this material fact had not been disclosed in the petition. Moreover, disputed questions of fact are involved and the same cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. For what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is dismissed.