The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents invited the applications for allotment of plots through public notice published in the Daily Jang dated 27-2- 1993. The petitioner in obedience of the public notice submitted his application for allotment of plot in question. The petition deposited Rs,11,000 alongwith his application. In terms of the public notice the Pakistan Writers Guild issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner that petitioner is a member of Pakistan Writers Guild. The application of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents vide letter dated 4-9-1996 on the ground that the Government of the Punjab has already been changed the allotment policy since 24-10-1993 and according to the new allotment policy all the quotas has been suspended and all the plots will be disposed of through open auction. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel, of the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted- his application much before the change of policy by the competent Authority, therefore, the petitioner has accrued vested right. The respondents have no authority whatsoever, to take away the vested right accrued to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he replied upon the case of "Secretary to Government of Punjab Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Lahore v. Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate and 2 others "(1997 SCM R 1606) and Ch. Muhammad Anwar v.
Province of Punjab (1996 M LD 961).
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that no plot was allotted to any journalist, therefore, action of the respondents is in accordance with law. He further submits that all such applications were to be scrutinized by a Sub-Committee to assess eligibility of each applicant.
After scrutiny the case was to be placed before D.H.C. for making its recommendations to the Government for approval. The case of the petitioner alongwith others, was being processed when the Provincial Cabinet vide its decision dated 15-9-1993 abolished all discretionary/special group quotas. In pursuance of the Cabinet decision, Government in Housing and Physical Planning, Department notified policy vide Notification dated 25-10-1993 according to which all sorts of quotas discretionary or special group quotas were abolished and all plots were required to be disposed of through open auction. Since then policy of 1993 is in vogue. Further processing of such cases pertaining to allotment suspended. He further submits that mere inviting of applications does not confer any right on the applicant for allotment of a plot. He summoned up his arguments that advertisement for allotment does not create a right of allotment. The case of the petitioner could not be processed further due to introduction of new policy dated 25-10-1993. He is. therefore, free to collect the money deposited in the shape of deposit at call. Coupled with the fact that application of the petitioner was still in process when the allotment policy of 1993 was duly notified which revoked/replaced 1986 policy, no right whatsoever has accrued to the petitioner.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-
(i) The public notice appeared in Daily Jang dated 27-2-1993 inviting applications for allotment of residential plots.
(ii) The petitioner ' submitted application on 17-3-1993 in obedience of the public notice.
(iii)The application of the petitioner was scrutinized alongwith others and during this process.
Provincial Government abolished all discretionary/special group quotas vide its decision dated 15- 9-1993.
The sole question for determination is whether by submitting an application in obedience of the public notice creates vested right or not. Vested right means right which is complete and consummated so that nothing remains to be done to fix the right.. As per principle laid down by the High Court of Dacca in East Bengal Province of East Pakistan v. A.Ali (PLD 1969 Dacca 764). The Honourable, Supreme Court also defined the word vested right in the following judgment in the following terms:-- Nabi Ahmed and another v. Home Secretary and 4 others (PLD 1969 SC 599).
"Vested right is free from, contingencies. "
The Honourable Supreme Court considered somewhat similar proposition of law in the cases where the parties participated in the auction proceedings and their bid were highest but the Honourable Supreme Court laid down principle that persons who participated in the auction proceedings did not accrue any vested right. In Munshi Muhammad's case (1971 SCM R 533) and laid down the following principle:-- "The view formed by the High Court is unexceptionable. Since the auction in favour of the petitioners were not finally approved, they did not acquire any right in the properties, and had therefore, no locus standi to ask for their transfer. According to the terms and conditions of the auction itself, the highest bids offered in the auctions were subject to the approval of the .AdditionalSettlement Commissioner concerned, who may not accept the bids, without assigning any reasons for his action."
The aforesaid proposition of law was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- Mehraj Din v. Noor Muhammad and 3 others (1970 SCM R 542); Rehmat Ali and 2 others v. The Revenue Board Lahore (1973 SCM R 342) and Babu Parvez Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner Multan and 2 others (1974 SCM R 337).
The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner Secretary to Government of Punjab H.P.P.
Environmental Planning Department. Lahore v. Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate and 2 others (1997 SCM R 1606) and Ch. Muhammad Anwar v. Province of Punjab. The plot was allotted to Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate as is evident from para. 1 of the reported judgment coupled with the fact that A.A-G. on instructions made a statement in writing that the Government was prepared to rectify the mistake and consented to the acceptance of the writ petition in terms of the prayer made therein as is evident from para. 5 of the reported judgment whereas in the present case the learned A.A-G. opposed the acceptance of the writ petition. The second case replied by the learned counsel of the petitioner (1996 M LD 961) is also distinguished as Ch. Muhammad Anwar, petitioner in the cited judgment was successful in the draw made for the allotment of the plot out of the quota reserved for the qualifying members of the Profession of Journalism whereas in the present case the stage of draw did not reach and the policy was changed by the Cabinet, coupled with the fact that petitioner failed to point out that any plot was allotted by the respondents to any other person in terms of the advertisement published in the Daily Jang dated 27-2-1993.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition to the extent of allotment of a plot to the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. There is another aspect of the case that the petitioner submitted application in obedience of the public notice dated 27-2-1993 to the respondents for allotment of the plot along with Rs,11,000 which was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 4-9-1996. This tact brings the case in the area that the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. It is the :duty and obligation of the respondents to inform the petitioner immediately that petitioner is not entitled for allotment of the plot in view of the Cabinet decision. In this view of the matter. the respondents are directed to return Rs,11.000 of the petitioner along with profit at the rate of 15% per annum from 17-3-1993 till 4-9-1996. Respondents are directed to return the said amount along with profit within two months.