Court rules ineligible applicants cannot claim housing rights merely because they were selected through a computerized ballot.
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has ruled that a person who does not meet the eligibility criteria of a housing scheme cannot claim a legal or enforceable right to a house or flat merely because their name was selected through a computerized ballot.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi issued the ruling while deciding cases concerning the allotment of 2,100-square-foot high-rise flats in Hayatabad Phase-V, Peshawar. The court dismissed the petitions and a related criminal appeal with costs.
In its detailed judgment, the FCCP held that the eligibility conditions specified in a housing scheme’s advertisement were fundamental and mandatory. A computerized ballot, it said, was merely a method of selecting applicants who had already fulfilled those requirements.
The court noted that the petitioners were serving federal government employees when the ballot was conducted and did not meet the scheme’s eligibility conditions. Their selection through the ballot, therefore, could not create a legal right to the allotment of flats.
The FCCP ruled that an administrative error cannot create a right that does not otherwise exist under the law or the rules governing a housing scheme.
It further held that a public authority cannot be compelled to perpetuate an illegality simply because the mistake was committed by its own officials. Once an erroneous allotment is discovered, the authority has a legal duty to correct it.
The court observed that allowing ineligible applicants to retain allotments involving limited public resources would also be unfair to applicants who fulfilled the prescribed conditions.
According to the judgment, cancellation of the allotments did not deprive the petitioners of any vested right. Rather, it amounted to the correction of an administrative mistake.
The court noted that the authorities had reconsidered the matter, provided the petitioners with an opportunity for a personal hearing and obtained the Advocate General’s opinion before a special committee unanimously decided on December 14, 2021, to cancel the allotments.
The FCCP also clarified that legitimate expectation cannot arise from an administrative error that is contrary to law. Similarly, the doctrine of estoppel cannot prevent public authorities from correcting an unlawful administrative decision.
The court dismissed the related contempt appeal, finding no wilful disobedience, and upheld the judgment of the Peshawar High Court.
The FCCP ultimately dismissed all the petitions and the criminal appeal with costs.