ISLAMABAD - Justice Sajjad Ali Shah of Supreme Court of Pakistan Monday recused himself from a bench hearing the allotment of plots in Sectors F-14 & 15 of federal capital to judges, military personnel and the bureaucrats.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah conducted hearing of the identical petitions.

It was August 17 when the FGEHA posted a list of successful candidates who were allotted plots in F-14 & 15 on its website. Two special assistants to the prime minister (SAPM), judges of the superior judiciary, and top bureaucrats are among those who have been allocated residential plots in Islamabad’s F-14 and F-15 sectors.

Justice Sajjad said that as he has been allotted plot in F-14, therefore he cannot hear this case. After the recusal of Justice Sajjad the bench dissolved therefore Justice Bandial referred the matter to the chief justice for constituting another bench. Later, the bench deferred the hearing in this matter till November 8.

The petitions were filed against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) restraining orders regarding allotment of plots to judges, bureaucrats and government employees in the sectors of F-14 and 15 in the federal capital.

Petitions filed against IHC restraining orders regarding plots allotment to judges, bureaucrats in federal capital

Several serving and retired federal government servants moved the top court   through their counsel Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar against the IHC’s orders dated August 20 and September 13. They prayed to the apex court to restrain the IHC from passing orders of similar nature against the petitioners. Earlier, the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) had also filed petitions through Akram Sheikh advocate against these IHC orders.

In this matter, the petitions adopted that the petitioners, being serving and retired government servants, were the allottees of plots/land in sectors F-14-F-15, Islamabad, and had deposited the required amount for long with the FGEHA in lieu of their allotted plots.

They stated that the question as to whether the land could have been acquired for the FGEHA was not the subject matter of the writ petition, whereas the IHC’s order on Sept 13, 2021 observed otherwise and travelled beyond their prayers even which was not the issue raised before the court.

They further said that the petitioners are seriously prejudiced by the impugned order dated Sept 13 passed by the learned division bench of the IHC being violative in law. The petition also stated that prior to 2009, the FGEHA offered housing to employees for specified scheme on the basis of their age and seniority in government service in its scheme-specific drives.

It continued that the FGEHA, at the time of launching a new scheme, would advertise a membership drive for the particular scheme, and employees were allotted housing within that scheme and seniority of members subscribing to the scheme specific drives was determined on the basis of date of birth or the seniority within the relevant government cadre.

It also stated that while exercising the jurisdiction in the instant matter, “the high court, with due respect, has passed the order which amounts to judicial overreach, thus requires intervention” by the apex court.

It maintained that the high court failed to comprehend while exercising the jurisdiction that there must exist a dispute before exercising judicial power by an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and further this is an essential pre requisite to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, thus impugned order is not sustainable.

The petition contended that the IHC could not reassert or reassess the proceedings on such point which already decided by this court and those principles had further been elaborated through various judgments of the apex court.

The petition said that the high court went beyond the jurisdiction given under the Constitution and acted against the principles of oversight jurisdiction enshrined under Article 199 of the Constitution and pronounced by this court.