Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Muhammad Rafique, impugns the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (City), in his capacity as the Registrar 's nominee, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to a refund of Rs.8,500/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 / WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society had changed its address without informing the petitioner; that the petitioner was not well educated, and comes from a backward area in District Mansehra; that the petitioner was a disabled person, and had paid an amount of Rs.9,500/- in respect of "cost of land" about three decades ago; and that the petitioner had not received any notice regarding the payment of the remaining installments from respondent No.3 / Society . Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed and for the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 to be set- aside.
3. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner .
4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner paid Rs.9,500/- almost three decades ago and was given membership in respondent No.3 / Society . The petitioner could not make payment in accordance with the payment schedule. Vide letter dated 02.01.1992, the petitioner had been asked to pay Rs.14,500/- towards the cost of land by 15.09.1992. Against the said demand , the petitioner paid only Rs.8,500/-. The petitioner defaulted in making payment of the remaining installments despite reminders issued to him on 22.12.1992 and 29.08.1994. It is due to this default that the petitioner 's name was not included in the balloting. As far back as 30.07.2003, the Managing Committee of respondent No.3 / Society decided to refund the cost of land deposited by the defaulting members, including the petitioner .
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert any of the facts set out in the impugned order dated 03.03.2021. The mere fact that respondent No.3 / Society had changed its address without informing the petitioner would not ipso facto absolve the petitioner from his responsibility from paying the installments toward the cost of land.
6. Since I do not find any jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.03 .2021, the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine .