1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 11- 4-1982, whereby Plot No, 731 situated in Sector F-1 Mirpur, was allotted to non-petitioner No, 2 and the claim of the petitioner, for the allotment of the said Plot was not considered.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, according to the case of the petitioner, he applied for the allotment of the aforesaid Plot as early as on the 16th of November, 1974 and also enclosed a Bank Draft for Rs, 2,00 as the earnest money, as required under the relevant Rules. But the said Plot was allotted to non-petitioner No, 2 on 27-12-1975, in disregard to the preferential qualifications of the petitioner, by the Allotment Committee headed by Ch. Sohbat Ali. Some allotments were made by the said Committee which were challenged in this Court, through writ petitions and in case entitled "Ghulam Rasul Mir and others v. Allotment Committee" those allotments were declared void because, the said Committee was not properly constituted. In consequence of the verdict of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the Government cancelled all the allotments made by the said Committee by Government Order dated 20-7-1978 and constituted a Revising Authority to revise and reprocess the allotments. Consequently, the petitioner also preferred his claim for the allotment of the Plot in question before B the said Revising Authority but, according to the petitioner, the influence of the non-petitioner again prevailed and the Revising Authority restored the allotment made in favour of the non-petitioner No,
2. The petitioner challenged the order of the Revising Authority through a writ petition but while the writ petition was pending in this Court, Government issued a Notification on the 16th December, 1980 whereby all the orders passed by the previous Allotment Committee and the Revising Authority were cancelled and it was directed that the present Allotment Committee may allot the plots C to the persons in whose names, the allotments were cancelled, on the terms and conditions for the time being in force, subject to the entitlement etc., in relaxation of the Rules and Regulations on the subject. Thus, the plots, the allotments of which was not to be considered genuine by the present Allotment Committee, would be disposed of according to the normal method prescribed for the disposal of plots. As a result of the aforesaid Government Notification, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, as being infructuous. In pursuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Allotment Committee framed Special Regulations for the disposal of the' plots, the allotments of which were cancelled through the said Notification. According to the Notification and Special Regulation, the applications for D the allotments of the plots cancelled, were called only from the persons who held the allotments of respective plots in their favour, previously. The petitioner had never been an allottee of the Plot in dispute and had only been a claimant. The petitioner moved an application on a plain paper; copy of which is Annexure 'E' to the petition but the Allotment Committee, without hearing him or considering his application, passed the impugned order, whereby the Plot in question was again allotted to non-petitioner No,
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file.
3. ' The grouse of the petitioner is that Notification No, 70/M DA-I4/1762-1774 dated the 16th December, 1980 is discriminatory, and thus, is violative of Fundamental Right 4(15) of the Interim Constitution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Commentaries on the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by M. Munir and from the Book named Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies in Pakistan by Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, to substantiate his contention that the aforesaid Notification, whereby right to apply for the allotments of the plots was confined only to the previous allottees, offends against the provisions regarding equal protection before law, as enshrined in the Interim Constitution. We have closely perused the relevant commentaries in the aforesaid treatises and have also considered the provisions contained in section 4(15) of the Interim Constitution. There is consensus that reasonable classification is not barred and that the prohibition against the denial of equal protection, does not preclude the Legislature from confining the Legislation to a class or classes, prescribed in different sets of Rule in different classes, discriminating in favour or against a certain class, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) That the classification or discrimination is not arbitrary but reasonable and rests on real and substantial differences or distinction which bears just and reasonable relation to the Legislation or the subject or object thereof, and
(ii) That the Legislation operates equally uniformally and impartially on all the persons or property within the same class.
5. ' It is evident from the rules enunciated above, that if the classification is reasonable and is not arbitrary or capricious, it cannot be said to have offended against the principle of equal protection of law. While deciding as to whether the Legislation or any Administrative order is violative of the principle of equality before law, the Court has to take into consideration the object of the order or Legislation and attending circumstances resulting in the order or Legislation, intended to be assailed. The allotments made by the Committee headed by Ch. Sohbat Ali had to be annulled by the Government because, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, found that the said Committee was not properly constituted. In other words, the allotments had to be cancelled by the Government because, it was found by this Court that constitution of the Allotment Committee, being improper, the allotments made by it, were null and void in the eye of law. In other words, the persons who applied for the allotments of the plots and even in some cases, paid full price.; of the plots and raised constructions thereon, were not to be blamed because, they had no hand in the Constitution of the said Allotment Committee. It was none of their fault for which they should be made to suffer due to the technicalities of law. It may be observed here that after the judgment of this Court in "Ghulam Rasul Mir's case" there was no choice with the Government but to cancel the previous allotments which were challenged through writ petitions. When the Government set up a Revising Authority to re-process the previous allotments, the said Authority passed some orders in respect of the allotments which were held to be void, by this Court in the aforesaid case. The matter came up for consideration before this Court in a writ petition filed by Mst. Kaneez Fatima which has been referred in the impugned Notification and it was opined by this Court that Revising Authority is competent to look into the matter and process only those allotments which existed and not the allotments which have been held `ab initio' void in Ghulam Rasul Mir and others. Thus, the Government had to issue the impugned Notification to avert anomalous position. Only two courses were open to the Government ; either to make the allotments of the aforesaid plots, open to all the categories, stipulated in the relevant Rules in general or to confine the reconsideration of the cases of new allotments to the previous allottees. The Government, vide impugned Notification, choose the latter course because, in view of the fact that previous allottees had to lose their allotments due to none of their fault and that previous allottees had also paid fall or part of the prices of the plots. It was, under these circumstances, that the impugned Notification visualized, even relaxation in the Rules in cases of previous allottees. The Allotment Committee's powers were limited by virtue of the aforesaid Notification to cancel the allotments of the plots of previous allottees only in cases where previous allottees were found to be undeserving, in view of the relevant Rules on the subject.
6. The aforesaid limitation was imposed with a view to lessen the hardships and burden which the previous allottees might suffer in case, the aforesaid plots would have been made available for allotments to general categories.
7. We have recounted the aforesaid circumstances with a view to assess as to whether the impugned Notification and Special Regulations framed, in pursuance of such Notification, were reasonable under these circumstances. Keeping into consideration the aforesaid situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned Notification and Special Regulations do not offend against the principle of equal protection of law because classification visualized by the said Notification and Special Regulations is just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the relevant enactment on the subject.
8. ' It needs hardly any mention that petitioner being not a previous" allottee, had no right to apply or to be heard, while making the allotments in favour of non-petitioner No, 2.
9. ' In the aforesaid view of the matter, finding no force in this writ petition, it is hereby dismissed in limine.