' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was retired as Section Officer on 1-6-1997. During his service the petitioner filed an application for allotment of the house in question to his son under the parents scheme of the respondents. The Chief Minister accepted the application of the petitioner vide order, dated 16-5-1996 which is attached as Annexure "A" with the main writ petition. The respondents failed to honour the direction of Chief Minister and the petitioner being aggrieved filed the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents are duty bound to obey the direction of the Chief Minister, but the respondents malafidely did not obey the direction of the Chief Minister. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case Ishfaq Hussain Rana v.
Government of the Punjab through Secretary Agriculture, Punjab and 38 others 1993 SCM R 1326. He further submits that action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the petitioner mentioned the name of various officers in paras. Nos.10 and 11 of the writ petition to whom the respondents had already allotted the houses under the said policy.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the petitioner secured the order on 16-6- 1996 under the political influence, and the respondents were justified not to honour that. He further submits that according to the new policy, the petitioner is not entitled to get house in question.
4. Learned counsel of respondent No,4 submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the house in question under the new policy of respondents as is evident from para. No,17 of the scheme. He further submits that the house in question consists of 4 rooms; whereas the son of the petitioner is in Grade-7 who is not entitled to be allotted the house in question. He further submits that the house in question is allotted to respondent No,4. The respondent No,4 did not get the possession of the house in question in view of restraining order passed by this Court.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner has mentioned various precedents in which the respondents had allotted the house under the said scheme to the persons mentioned in paras. Nos.10 and 11 of the writ petition, whose status are not to retain the houses allotted to them giving relaxation of the policy of the respondents by the competent Authority.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
7. It is settled principle of law that it is the prerogative of the competent Authority either to allot the Government accommodation under the policy to the Government Official/Officer or not. The High Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of A the matter. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' Dr. Munir Ahmad, Medical Officer v. Chairman House Allotment Committee 1983 CLC 1783; Iris Sammuel Gill v, Government of Punjab PLD 1979 bah, 467 and Imtiaz Hussain v, Government of Pakistan through Secretary and others 1992 CLC 1122, ' According to the policy of allotment of the houses under the said scheme, The Chief Minister does not figure any way. In this view of the matter, the judgment relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner Ishfaq Hussain Rana's case, 1993 SCM R 1326 has no relevancy. The recommendation- secured by the petitioner from the Chief Minister on 16-5-1996 in the relaxation of entitlement under the parents scheme is not in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar v. Government of Punjab PLD 1991 SC 35 and Captain (R) Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar PLD 1992 SC 184.
8. The respondents are well within their rights not to obey the direction of Chief Minister, dated 16- 5-1996 as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was retired from the service in Grade-17; whereas his son was in Grade-7 at the relevant time. Son of the petitioner was not entitled to retain the house in question in view of para. No,17 of the Scheme of the respondents. The respondents had taken stand in reply of para. No,10 and admitted to the extent that 3/4 roomed quarters were allotted under parent concession scheme under the political pressure which is causing unnecessarily litigation. Hence, the Government has decided not to allot any accommodation in relaxation of rule in future. The aforesaid stand of the respondents, brings the case in the area that the petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Nawab Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236.
9. However, in the interest of justice and fairplay, the respondents are restrained to take possession of the house in question from the petitioner for 20 days from today in view of order dated 28-3-1997 in Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1997 to enable the petitioner to arrange the alternative accommodation, which is to be following effect:-- "In the meanwhile, the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession over the disputed property."
' The petitioner has alleged the serious allegation in pan, No, 10 of the writ petition which was not denied by the respondents, In this view of the matter, respondent No,1 is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter qua the Government accommodation, In ease, the committee finds any official/officer who secured the allotment letter in his favour under the influence of politician under the competent Authority in violation of Rules and Regulations of the respondents, then action may be taken against him in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to him under the law.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.