Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42 , 55

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---- Ss.42 & 54 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Principles of natural justice, violation of --- Authorities had cancelled allotment order of petitioners in respect of quarter in dispute without issuing to them any show-cause notice and without hearing them --- Authorities had violated principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without giving an opportunity of being heard---Authorities were estopped from cancelling allotment of petitioners because it had allotted the quarter in dispute on condition that petitioners would withdraw their suit --- After petitioners had withdrawn the suit, only three days after such withdrawal, allotment of petitioners was cancelled without disclosing any reason and without any notice to the petitioners --- Very fact of such cancellation of allotment, held, showed that allotment to petitioners was deceptive and its cancellation was mala fide. Zamir for Petitioners. Ch. Rashid for Respondents No.2. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1991 JUDGMENT 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 Teachee 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…