1. ' SYED ABDUR REHMAN,. J.--This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that their father Muhammad < Yousuf was employed as 'Carry and Wagon Inspector' in Pakistan Railways at Karachi. In that capacity he was allotted a Railway Quarter No,25-A, situated in Railway Colony, Karachi. In this quarter the two petitioners alongwith other family members resided with their father. The petitioner No,1 besides being the son of railway employee, is also himself employed in Pakistan Railway as Sub-Engineer Mechanical (Diesel) w,e,f. 6-6-1987. Similarly, petitioner No,2 is also employed as a 'Science Teacher' in Railway School Bin Qasim under Pakistan Railways. Petitioners' father retired on 10-10- 1988. Before his retirement he submitted an application to the respondents for transfer of allotment of the quarter in the name of the two petitioners in accordance with Railway policy. The respondent enlisted the name of petitioner No,2 in their priority register, but did not transfer the allotment of the quarter in his name and by that time the retirement of their father came very near. On the application of the petitioners' father extension of two months' time was granted. However, during this period instead of allotting the quarter to the petitioner No,2, the respondent allotted the same to Abdul Khaliq Bhatti, another employee of the Railway and issued notice to the petitioners to hand over the possession of the quarter otherwise they would be ejected by force. Consequently, the petitioners and, their father filed Suit No,1656 of 1988 in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-South for declaration and permanent injunction. The learned Senior Civil Judge granted stay order in favour of the petitioners, which was confirmed later on. The respondents filed an appeal against the said order before District Judge, South-Karachi in May, 1988. On 27-7-1989 the respondents issued allotment order of the said quarter in the name of petitioner No,1 and cancelled the allotment of Abdul Khaliq Bhatti on the condition that they withdraw the suit. Consequently, the petitioners withdrew their suit on 23-8-1989. Respondent No, 2, only three days after the said withdrawal of the suit i,e. 26-8-1989, cancelled the allotment of petitioner No,1 without disclosing, any reasons whatsoever and without any notice to the petitioners. Hence this petition with the following prayer:- "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court of Sindh at Karachi may be pleased to declare:
(i) That the impugned Order dated 26-8-1989 (Annexure-K) issued by the Respondent No,2 is mala fide, arbitrary and of no legal effect.
(ii) That the impugned actions/orders to the extent of contradiction and conflict with the Railways Policy of Allotment and Rules of Priority are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
(iii) To direct the Respondents to cancel the order dated 26-8-1989 (Annexure-K) and issue proper Allotment Order in favour of either of the two Petitioners in respect of the Quarter No,25/A.
(iv) To direct the Respondents pending disposal of this Petition to allow the petitioners and their dependants/family members to reside and enjoy peaceful possession of the Quarter No,25/A, City Station, Railway Colony, Karachi.
(v) To grant any other/further relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. ' We have heard Mr. Zamiruddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent No, 1 has been duly served and is being intimated about each date of hearing, but nobody has appeared on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No,2 Ch. Rasheed Ahmed had appeared and also filed parawise comments. The petition was admitted to regular hearing on 12-10-1989. On 19-10- 1989 the status quo order passed on 12-10-1989 was confirmed with the consent of Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No,2. Thereafter the case was fixed on 17-12-1990. Then Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No,2, remained absent on that date.
3. Therefore, the case was adjourned for today. Even today Ch. Rasheed Ahmed has remained absent. There is no appearance for respondent No,1 also.
4. ' It appears that respondents have lost interest.
5. This petition can be allowed on the short ground that the respondents had cancelled the allotment order of petitioner No,1 on 26-8-1989 without issuing any show cause notice to him and without hearing him and thereby violated the golden principle of natural justice that no person shall be condemned without giving an opportunity of being heard. Apart from that the respondents were estopped from cancelling the allotment because they had allotted the quarter to the petitioner No,1 and had asked the petitioners to withdraw their suit. After the petitioners had thus withdrawn the suit the respondent could not have cancelled the allotment. The very fact that the cancellation was effected only three days after the withdrawal of the suit shows that the allotment was deceptive and its cancellation was mala fide. Hence the impugned order of cancellation of allotment cannot be upheld.
6. ' For these reasons, we allow the petition with costs and set aside the impugned order dated 26-8- 1989 with the result that allotment of, the petitioner No,1 is revived.