' MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).--We intend to dispose of the above two appeals by a common order as they arise from orders dated 4-4-1998 in Case No.4-A (212) of 1997 passed by Mr. Abdul Rashid Khan, Member, N.I.R.C. Islamabad whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed and by a separate order of the same date, the petition No.4-A(235) of 1997 filed by Muhammad Sadiq was accepted.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant Wed Petition No.4-A (212) of 1997 on 31-5-1997 for a direction to the respondents not to allot quarter No.13/7-B, G9/2, Islamabad to any other person and the management be also directed to hand over vacant possession of the quarter to the appellant. The Single Bench while admitting the petition passed an interim order to the effect that the said quarter shall not be allotted to any other person. Another Petition No.4-A
(235) of 1997 was filed by Muhammad Sadiq respondent No.3 on 20-6-1997 wherein appellant was not impleaded as a party and a note was given by the Deputy Registrar on that case that the petition about the said quarter was already pending before the Single Bench. However, it was entertained by the .learned Member and a status quo order was granted in favour of respondent No.3.
3. The Respondent Management submitted parawise comments to the petition of the appellant and in para. 3 on merits, it was admitted that the competent Authority had approved the case for allotment of the above quarter to the appellant subject to clearance from Allotment Committee and that Allotment Committee cleared the case of the appellant but due to stay order received, the file was returned to the Administration Directorate. Even in the reply submitted in the case of Muhammad Sadiq, the same position was explained. Even then the learned Member confirmed the earlier order. Respondent No.3 unauthorisedly occupied the quarter although there was no such stay order in his favour nor there was any allotment order in favour of Respondent No.3. The findings given by the Single Bench are, thus, contrary to the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record. The allotment was subsequently made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 under the impugned orders of Single Bench. Both the orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. The Counsel for respondent No.1 frankly admitted that the correct position was explained in their written statement. However, in view of order granted in favour of respondent No.3 by the learned Member, the allotment of the said quarter was made in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 stated that he was eligible for allotment of quarter and, therefore, he filed the petition before the Commission, The quarter was allotted to him in the light of the order dated 4-4-1998.
5. We have minutely gone through the record of the case. It is correct that appellant filed a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 on 31-5-1997 and vide order dated 2-6-1997 a restraint order was passed by the Single Bench to the effect that the above quarter shall not be allotted to any other person. Subsequently, Muhammad Sadiq respondent No.3 filed Case No.4-A (235) of 1997 in which as stated by the counsel for the appellant, a status quo order was granted in his favour. In para. 3 of the written statement filed by respondent No.1 (CDA), it was clearly admitted that the competent Authority had approved the case for allotment of the above quarter to Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Tubewell Operator. The Single Bench failed to take notice of that fact and wrongly decided the case in favour of respondent No.3 on the basis of allotment letter dated 26-9-1994 which is not available in the record. On the contrary, an explanation letter was issued to respondent No.3 by Deputy Director, Tubewell Division, on 10-6-1997 to explain the reasons of unauthorised occupation of the above quarter which certainly shows that no allotment was made to respondent No.3 in 1994 in respect of the quarter under dispute. It is also admitted during arguments by respondent No.3 as well as by respondent No.1 that the above quarter was illegally occupied by respondent No.3 and the allotment was subsequently made under the orders of the Single Bench, which are impugned through the above appeals. The impugned orders passed by the Single Bench in case No.4A (212) of 1997 as well as in Case No.4-A(235) of 1997 dated 4-4-1998 are therefore, not justified and hence cannot be maintained and as such are set aside. The process of law by no means can be used for illegal acts or to give life to illegal possession. Respondent No.3 illegally and unauthorisedly occupied the disputed quarter and as mentioned above, an explanation letter was also issued to him, whereafter he filed the petition with an intention to regularize his illegal act.
6. The matter does not end here. It appears that the Department (CDA) has failed to make allotments of the quarters in accordance with the Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993. The Capital Development Authority adopted the Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993, for allotment of. quarters to their staff. According to those rules, a General Waiting List shall have to be maintained for. each class and category of accommodation in the prescribed form and bound volumes which will be available for inspection by the servants concerned during office hours on all working days. The method of seniority and other relevant factors are contained in rule 5 of the Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993, Under Rule 6 of the said rules, the method of "Out of turn allotment" has been described.
Still, under Rule 7 of the said rules, cycle of allotment has also been stated. The respondent No.1 is, therefore, under a legal obligation to maintain the lists strictly in accordance with and in the light of the prescribed rules and not to violate term in any circumstances, even under the influence of any trade union of workers including the C.B.A., in order to avoid any discrimination or heart burning of any employee and unfair lab our practice.
7. The Respondent Department is, therefore directed to prepare the General Waiting List as well as list of "out of turn basis" strictly in accordance with the relevant rules before making any allotment of quarters to the workers which will be available for inspection by the servants concerned during office hours on all working days. They are further refrained from committing any discrimination with any worker on the grounds that he is or is not a member or officer of a trade union.
' They are further directed to follow the Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993 in letter and spirit.