' This constitution petition is directed against the order, dated 3rd May 1979 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Development) Housing and Physical Department whereby the allotment of the quarter No, 48-A, Rehmanpura, Lahore made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the order allotting the quarter in dispute in the name of Salahuddin respondent.
2. The brief history of the controversy subject-matter of this constitution petition is that on an application submitted by the petitioner, Quarter in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by the then Member Board of Revenue vide allotment order, dated 1st September, 1956. This allotment was cancelled and the quarter in dispute was resumed vide order, dated 30th November, 1961 and on appeal the allotment was restored vide order, dated 25th September, 1962. This order was, however, set aside in revision which led to the filing of constitutional petition (W. P. 1015/1963). The petitioner succeeded as the same was accepted by this Court vide order, dated 10th October, 1973 and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law. Ultimately, the revision petition of Salahuddin was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department vide order, dated 13th February, 1975. Salahuddin respondent then challenged these orders by filing a suit in the civil Court. He also sought temporary injunction but the same was refused by the trial Court and this order refusing temporary injunction was maintained even by the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile one Dr. Ehsanullah submitted a petition to the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department and the same was forwarded for disposal to the Deputy Secretary (Development) for disposal after notice to the petitioner. This petition was accepted vide impugned order, dated 3rd May, 1979 and the allotment was cancelled by returning the finding that the two conditions of eligibility were not satisfied when the petitioner secured allotment of the quarter in dispute and that it was established on record that the allotment secured by Ali Muhammad petitioner was not only illegal but was also obtained by concealing the facts and by making a false statement in the application Form submitted for seeking allotment. The plea that the petitioner was not qualified to seek the allotment was based on the assertion that (i) at the time of filing of the application for allotment of the quarter in dispute in 1956. The petitioner was already in possession/ allotment of evacuee House No, 31, Lal Charan Street, Anarkali, Lahore having obtained allotment in his name on 12th August, 1953 ; and that (ii) only a Government servant who was drawing pay from Rs, 150 to Rs, 300 per mensem was entitled to apply for allotment of 'C' type quarter in Rehmanpura Colony but the petitioner was admittedly drawing only Rs, 105 as monthly pay. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that though the allotment was cancelled on the petition moved by Dr. Ehsanullah the quarter in dispute was, however, allotted on 7th July, 1979 not to him but to Salahuddin respondent who had failed to secure the allotment in the earlier round of litigation. This allotment in the name of Salahudin respondent was made subject to the condition that in case a competent Court restored the allotment in favour of the petitioner, Salahuddin respondent would be entitled to alternate accommodation. The petitioner challenged the order, dated 3rd May, 1979 cancelling his allotment by filing the present constitution petition in this Court on 10th July, 1979. Report was called for from respondent No, 1 vide order, dated 6th November, 1979 but in the meanwhile an agreement was executed in favour of Salahuddin on 9th July, 1979 and later on sale-deed was also executed and registered in his favour on 8th September, 1979. The petition was admitted to hearing on 20th January, 1980. It was asserted by Salahuddin respondent that before service of notice of this petition and being unaware of the pendency of this petition, he after rebuilding the quarter in question sold the same to one Muhammad Bashir vide sale-deed, dated 15th July, 1982. The petitioner has not impleaded the aforesaid Muhammad Bashir in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties addressed detailed arguments o merits but all these contentions need not be recorded here as the petition is being disposed of on the ground that the petitioner is not entitle to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Assistant Advocate- General supported by Salahuddin respondent argued that the petitioner obtained the allotment by making false representation and by submitting a false affidavit with respect to one of the conditions of eligibility for seeking allotment of the quarter in dispute. Referring to the application form submitted for seeking allotment of the quarter (Exh. R/D-1 with the written statement of respondent) and the allotment order it was submitted that a person who has received allotment of any evacuee property was not eligible to seek allotment of quarter but the petitioner by making false representation and swearing false affidavit to the effect that he had not been allotted any evacuee property though as a matter of fact he was allotted House No, 31, Lal Charan Street, Anarkali, Lahore on 12th August, 1953 obtained the allotment of the quarter in dispute. It was asserted that aforesaid allotted house was ultimately transferred to the petitioner and one Mir Muhammad vide P. T.O., dated 2nd February, 1960 (Annexure "R/C"). The factum of allotment of this house was sought to be proved by producing a copy of the statement of the petitioner (Annexure.
"R/H)." The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the aforesaid evacuee house was neither allotted to the petitioner nor a P.T.O. In respect of the same was ever issued in the name of the petitioner. He stated that he had the instructions of the petitioner who was present in Court to categorically repudiate the assertion made by the learned counsel for the respondent and to deny that the petitioner was allotted or transferred the said house. He further undertook to file an affidavit denying specifically the aforesaid assertion. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the parties continued to argue the case but on the adjourned date when the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to pronounce the affidavit as undertaken by him be sought adjournment on the pretext that he could not contact the petitioner, On his specific request the case was adjourned to 21st June 1983 but again on the date he expressed his inability to file to requisite affidavit saying that the petitioner could not be contacted as he was out of Lahore. As the parties had already completed the arguments he requested that judgment be reserved and that within a day or so he will file the necessary affidavit. The judgment was accordingly reserved on 27th June, 1983. The petitioner has not filed the affidavit.
4. From the aforenoted conduct of the petitioner it is apparent that the petitioner is not in a position to deny the assertion that the petitioner had already been allotted the aforesaid house when he submitted an application for allotment of the quarter in dispute. The petitioner as such was not entitled even to submit the form as he did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility.
' The allotment was thus obtained on false representation. Moreover, the conduct exhibited during the course of the hearing of this petition was also not above board. The petitioner as such stands disentitled to the grant of any relief in exercise of equitable constitutional jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed on this ground alone. There shall be no order as to costs.