Withdrawal of Judges' accommodation: housing ministry revokes notification, IHC told

The Ministry for Housing and Works on Friday informed the Islamabad High Court that it has taken back the government's notification wherein it had withdrawn the allotment of government accommodation to the judges of lower courts of the federal capital.
A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui conducted hearing of the petition of 33 judges from lower judiciary of Islamabad challenging the government's notification wherein it had withdrawn the allotment of official accommodation to them while Minister for Housing and Work Akram Khan Durrani and secretary of the ministry appeared before the court in person.
Justice Siddiqui noted in his verdict, "Akram Khan Durrani, Minister for Housing and Works, submits that impugned notification has already been withdrawn, however, some interpretation is required in respect of judgment passed by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani. This court has to decide the issue permanently, let this matter be adjourned until 10-5-2018."
In this matter, the petitioners approached the court through their counsel Babar Saeed Advocate and cited the federation through secretary housing and works, Miraj Muhammad Khan, section officer (Policy) Ministry of Housing, and Estate Office as respondents.
In their petition, they stated that petitioners are judicial officers at Islamabad and are eligible and entitled for allotment of government accommodation. The petitioners added that they were allotted government accommodation as per their entitlement and possession of said accommodation was handed over to them and house rent allowance was also being deducted from their monthly salary.
They adopted that the petitioners are legal and lawful allottees of the accommodations. But, they told the court that on March 28, the respondents without any reason or justification issued a notification whereby the eligibility of the judicial officers for allotment of government accommodation was withdrawn.
They contended that it is the basic principal that all the stakeholders shall be taken in confidence; however, before issuing impugned notification, no such exercise was undertaken. The petitioners argued that the said notification was issued under Rule 28 of AAR, however, bare reading of the rules does not give any such right to the respondents to issue any such notification, hence, impugned notification was issued in excess of legal authority of Estate Office.
They maintained that necessary legal and procedural requirements and other conditions precedent for issuance of notification have not been met before issuance of impugned notification, thus the same is illegal, unlawful and unjustified.
Therefore, the petitioner judges prayed to the court to accept their petition and the said impugned notification may kindly be declared illegal, void ab initio, ultra vires and issued without any lawful authority, consequently same is ineffective qua the rights of the petitioners. They further requested that the respondents may be permanently restrained from taking any action, prejudicial to the interests, rights of the petitioners, in continuation of impugned notification.