ISLAMABAD: The Sup­reme Court will take up on Monday (today) a set of petitions moved by the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) and its director general seeking the court’s protection against “obstacles in carrying out lawful pursuits and developing acquired lands” to provide accommodation to the homeless.

The cases will be heard by a three-judge Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. Muhammad Akram Sheikh will represent the FGEHA and Muhammad Munir Paracha will be the director general’s counsel.

The petitioners prayed to the apex court to set aside the restraining order issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Aug 20 which suspended allotments made in favour of those judicial officers who were serving, or had served, in the high court and the Islamabad District Courts.

The IHC had not only placed the matter before a larger bench for further hearing, but also expressed its surprise that in the ballot for allotment of plots in Islamabad’s F-14 and F-15 sectors, virtually every judicial officer of the district courts was a beneficiary.

The high court saw this as conflict of interest because the plots were given at prices substantially lower than the market rate. Moreover, the list even included names of some judicial officers who were dismissed on account of misconduct or corruption.

The appeals filed by the FGEHA and its director general contended that the high court cannot exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and that it can only invoke this provision if an aggrieved party files an appeal.

The appeals recalled that the petitioners before the Islamabad High Court had not challenged acquisition of the land.

The question is (a) whether the land could have been acquired for FGEHA and (b) who is eligible for allotment of plots carved out from the land acquired for the authority, the petition contended.

The IHC, through its Aug 20 judgement, had raised questions which were neither taken up by the petitioners nor had the writ petition sought any opinion on the matter, the appeal argued.

“This amounts to exercise of suo motu powers which the High Court (IHC) does not have. As has already been submitted that the High Court can invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 either on the application of an aggrieved party or on the application of any person, the Aug 20 order therefore is patently illegal,” the appeal highlighted.

The court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199, cannot travel beyond the grievance of an aggrieved party or a person, the petitioners argued.

Since all contentious issues raised by the IHC had been resolved by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the court’s Aug 20 order was not sustainable, the petitions said.

The FGEHA, it submitted, was a public institution working to provide shelter to present, as well as retired, federal government employees, but vested interests had rendered the organisation dysfunctional by scandalising it in the media.

The high court order has created a sense of concern among members of FGEHA schemes and allottees throughout Islamabad and other cities, the petitions said.

“Therefore, it is imperative that the adjudication of this matter of great public importance be in line with the constitutional scheme of adjudication and without any influence from the parties involved so that FGEHA may continue its work uninterrupted and unhampered,” the petitioners pleaded with the Supreme Court.

Published in Dawn, November 1st, 2021