' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Intra-Court Appeal bearing No,432 of 1999, Writ Petition No,11659 of 1998, Writ Petition No,13515 of 1998, Writ Petition No,20626 of 1999 and Writ Petition No,20627 of 1999, as common questions are involved.
2. The petitioners in all these cases while serving against the posts of Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore were allotted official accommodations in the premises located in Allama Iqbal Medial College Complex. All of them have since been transferred from the said posts. Thereafter they were issued notices for vacation of the said premises, by the respondents.
3. They filed writ petitions, Whereas writ petition bearing No,9491 of 1999 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court vide a judgment dated 27-5-1999 and an I.C.A. Bearing No,452 of 1999 was filed against the said judgment, the remaining writ petitions were ordered to be heard by the Division Bench hearing the I.C.A.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioners contends that under the provisions of the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 1998 as also the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Ordinance, 2002, although the Medical Institutions or Health Institutions have been established in the nature of the respondents yet only administration and management of the institutions stand vested in the respondents and not the property, as the same has not been transferred by the Provincial Government to the respondents Institutions. The precise plea is that since the property i,e, the premises in question being occupied by the appellants/petitioners continues to vest in title in the Provincial Government, the said Institutions would not be having any lawful authority to deal with the said properties and consequently to eject the appellant/writ petitioners from the same.
Also states that the policy relating to the allotment of the said premises and the manner of dealing with the same has not backing of any statutory provision and as such the same cannot be enforced. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the respondents Institution is a body corporate and entitled to acquire property and that the property being part of the Institution does vest in it. He has relied upon several unreported judgments of this Court as also a judgment reported as 1998 PLC (C.S.) 122 (Shahid Javed v. Government of the Punjab) to contend that upon transfer from an institution the employee has to vacate the accommodation in the said institution. In reply to this latter argument Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate, with reference to doctrine of stare devises and also relying upon the case of Pir Bakhsh represented by his Legal Heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145) argues that the contention noted above was neither raised nor decided in the case being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. We have gone through the files of these cases, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that in order to establish and improve the Medical and Health Institutions and to give them an autonomous character in order to provide quality health care for the people of the Punjab. Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 1998 was promulgated on 25-11-1998. Section 2 of this Act provides for establishment of such Medical Institution and Health Institutions, as may be deemed fit by the Government by Notification and similarly to apply the said Act to any existing Medical Institution or Health Institution. By virtue of section 2(2), the notified Medical Institution shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal, with power to acquire. Hold and dispose of property and may by its name sue and be sued. Section 4 provides for the vesting of the Administration and management of the affairs of such Institution in the Management Committee to be appointed by the Government in accordance with section 5 of the Act. As to a Health Institution the Administration and Management, subject to the directions on the Government is to vest in such a body or person as may be notified. Section 5 of the Act provided for the constitution of a Managing Committee of a Medical Institution. According to this provision the Chairman of the Managing Committee is to be the Chief Executive to be appointed in terms of section 6 of the Act. The Dean/Principal of a Medical Institute concerned and the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital concerned are, respectively to be Member/Secretary of the Committee while 5 Members were to be proposed by the said Chairman and the two Members to be approved by the Government. Section 6 of the said Act provides for the appointment of a Chief Executive by the Government and exercising of powers and performance of such functions by him in the manner prescribed. Section 9 of the said Act provides for delegation of powers by the Managing Committee to any person or a Committee.
6. The said Act was repealed by section 17 of the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Ordinance, 2002. This Ordinance makes substantial changes in the scheme of things. Be that as it may, at the relevant time, the matter was governed by the said Act, 1998. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioners, he has relied upon section 4 of the said Act in support of the said contention noted above. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of the said provisions, only the administration and management of the affairs of a Medical Institution stood vested in the Management Committee to be appointed by the Government. Similarly, in the case of Health Institution, the administration and management, subject to directions of the Government. Is to be vested to such person or body as may be notified.
7. Before proceeding further, we may note here that the term "Medical Institution" or "Health Institution" has not been defined in the said Act. However, there appears to be no cavil that Allama Iqbal Medical College was notified as a Medical Institution and that a Chief Executive was appointed in terms of section 6 of the said Act. The said notified Institution is to be a body corporate with power to, inter alia,' hold and dispose of property. To our mind, in the absence of any provision to the contrary in the said Act, the property in question is to be held by the said notified Medical Institution and it cannot be said that it was not so intended by the said Act providing for the establishment of said Medical Institution and notifying the same.
8. We may, further state here that the transfer of property or vesting of property in title would not be relevant at all to the controversy involved in these cases. The respondent-Institution, in the matter of Administration and Management of the said property of the Medical Institution would not be acting in derogation to a title vesting in the Provincial Government, in the matter of allotment of the said premises or its vacation for the purposes of the Management and Administration of the Institution itself i,e, dealing with the matter of accommodating the employees of the Institution or making the accommodation available for them.
9. We may note here that in section 3 of the said Ordinance, 2002, repealing the said Act of 1998, an embargo has been placed upon the said Medical Institution or the Health Institution to dispose of the property without the approval of the Government. However, so far as the holding of the property is concerned, the said Institution continues to have the said power.
10. Coming to the said second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, we do find that the said Act of 1998 does not by itself spell out the powers of the Chief Executive in the matter of prescribing the Rules or policy. However, we find that nothing turns on the said contention for the reason that even under the policy being relied upon by the appellants/petitioners in these cases, stated to be issued by the Provincial Government the appellants/petitioners are liable to vacate the premises upon transfer out of the Institution on the expiry of the prescribed period of two months. In fact, we find that the said appellant (Professor Kamran Aziz) has appended the allotment order which does provide for vacation of the premises so allotted on transfer to another office at Lahore or outside Lahore.
11. Since we have already decided the question raised by the learned counsel the contention based on the said unreported judgments and in reply thereto need not to be discussed. The I.C.A. And the said writ petitions accordingly are dismissed. The said appellant and the writ petitioners however, are allowed a period of one month beginning today to vacate the said premises.
I.C.A. And writ .