Mst. AYESHA BIBI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore R

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. AYESHA BIBI VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore R. 19(3)(b)---Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Act (X of 2004), Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7, 16 & 21---Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2005, R. 19---Delegated legislation---Rules made under Statute---Interpretation---Allocation of house / plot to member of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation---Rule 19(3)(b) of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2013, vires of---Petitioner being mother of her deceased unmarried son, who was a Government servant, invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging vires of R.19(3)(b) of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2013 ('the Rules, 2013')---Plea of the petitioner was that R.19(3)(b) of the Rules, 2013 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 2004, the Rules of 2005 and the Regulations of 2013---Validity---Undeniably, Rules framed under a statute are to remain within the precinct of the statute itself and cannot transgress the limits and parameters of the parent statute---It is equally well-settled that rule-making power is an incidental power that must follow and not run parallel to the parent statute---Such legislation has to be interpreted in a way which conformed to and stayed within the parameters of the parent statute---No doubt, all efforts are to be made to interpret the rules so as to bring them in conformity and without injuring the intent and spirit of the statute, however where it was not possible, then the rules inasmuch as they injured the very intent and spirit must yield to the statute---Courts, therefore, will require due proof that the rules / regulations have been made and promulgated in accordance with the statutory authority and if those fail to comply with statutory essentials, the Courts may declare the same as invalid and ultra vires---To determine the vires of delegated legislation, High Court has to examine whether such delegated legislation was beyond the power granted by the enabling legislation and whether such delegated legislation was consistent with the parent statute---High Court declared the provision of R.19(3)(b) of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2013 to be inconsistent and ultra vires to the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Act, 2004---Constitutional petition, filed by mother of deceased unmarried son (Government Servants), was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. AYESHA BIBI VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore R.19(3)(b)---Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Act (X of 2004), Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7, 16 & 21---Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2005 , R. 19---Allocation of house / plot to member of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation---Change in priority of station of allocation---Petitioner was mother of her deceased unmarried son who was member of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation who, in his life, booked a plot with first choice of priority in his native district---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against order passed by Managing Director Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation ('PGSHF'), cancelling her provisional allotment ---Stance of respondents (PGSHF) was that only members who retired on or before 26.11.2008 were included in the draw, therefore petitioner's son having passed away on 15.04.2010, the petitioner was not included in the draw for the allotment of plot / house---Validity---Perusal of Ss.3, 4, 5, 7, 16 & 21 of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Act, 2004, as well as the R. 19 Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2005, showed that the allocation of house or plot and change in priority of stations is the authority and prerogative of PGSHF because the said provisions show the intention of the Legislature that the Board of Directors has been formulated to facilitate the PGSHF to carry out the purposes of the Act of 2004 whereas authority to change priority of stations has been devolved upon the Managing Director in R.13(3)(b) of the Rules of 2013---However, the stance of respondents (regarding only members who retired on or before 26.11.2008 were included in the draw) was misconceived as such arrangement was neither provided in the Act, 2004 or the Rules / Regulations nor supported by any lawful justification---Record revealed that even petitioner's name was included in the draw pursuant to direction of High Court, she deposited requisite amount and was ultimately allotted plot, therefore, in absence of any express provision of law regarding her disentitlement to participate in the draw, such allotment could not have been withdrawn / cancelled----High Court set-aside the impugned order declaring the same to be illegal and without lawful authority and remitted the matter to Board of Directors of PGHSF with the direction to reconsider petitioner's request and redress her grievance strictly in accordance with the applicable Laws/Rules/Regulations---Constitutional petition , filed by mother of deceased unmarried son (Government Servants), was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. AYESHA BIBI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore R — 2024 PLC(CS) 580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC