BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
LAHORE
Const. Petition No. ______________________/2025
Mst. Atifa Saghir, Assistant Director Fisheries , Punjab Fisheries
Department
Presently residing in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
...........Petitioner
Versus
1. Director General, Punjab Fisheries Department
2. Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed, Deputy Director (Fisheries)/Estate Officer, Punjab Fisheries
Department.
3. Mr. Sajid Mehmood, Deputy Director (Fisheries), Punjab Fisheries Department.
4. Mr. Muhammad Usman, Assistant Director (Fisheries), Punjab Fisheries Department.
5. Mr. Nadir Hussain, Fisheries Research Assistant, Punjab Fisheries Department.
6. Secretary (Welfare), Services & General Administration Department (S&GAD)
...........Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
PAKISTAN, 1973
______________________________________________________
Reverentially sheweth:
1. The petitioner, Mst. Atifa Saghir, is serving as Assistant Director
(Fisheries) in the Punjab Fisheries Department since 2008. She was
allotted Government Residence No. B-8 at Fisheries Colony, Manawan,
Lahore, in 2012. On 01-12-2018, she proceeded on duly sanctioned study
leave in connection with her Ph.D. program at Lahore College for Women
University, which continued until 30-11-2022. During the entire period of
study leave, the petitioner physically resided in the allotted residence.
Thereafter, the petitioner was granted Extraordinary Leave (EOL)
without pay from 01-12-2022 to 30-11-2024, and then further sanctioned
Ex-Pakistan EOL from 01-12-2024 to 30-11-2026 due to her ongoing
medical condition. The petitioner, during this period, relocated to
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to reside with her husband for treatment and
recovery. Despite being on valid and sanctioned leave, the petitioner
maintained legal possession of her residence and, notably, continued
residing in it up to at least 25-10-2024.
2. On 23-04- 2025, while still on leave, the petitioner received, through
WhatsApp on her personal number, a sudden and unanticipated order of
cancellation of her government residence. Two days later, on 25-05-
2025, she received via WhatsApp two further communications from an
official at the DG Fisheries Office; a copy of the allotment order of the
same residence to another officer, Dr. Maria Latif, dated 23-05-2025,
and a show cause notice backdated to 12-04-2025. Notably, the show
cause notice was delivered after the issuance of the cancellation and new
allotment order, thereby denying the petitioner any opportunity of a
hearing before the adverse action is a clear violation of due process.
Additional notices to vacate the premises were subsequently sent to the
petitioner and her husband via WhatsApp on 12 th , 13th , 16th , and 24th of
May 2025, even though the representation submitted by the petitioner
contesting the cancellation remained pending without response.
3. On 16-05-2025, the petitioner submitted a formal representation to the
Director General of the Fisheries Department via official email,
contesting the illegal cancellation and unlawful notices. The
representation highlighted that the residence was not vacant since
2018, as falsely stated, and clarified that she was lawfully entitled
to retain possession of the residence under Clause 16.5(i) of the
Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2024, which
permits retention of allotted accommodation for three years from the
date of sanctioned leave. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that
the backdated show cause notice was served only after the cancellation
order, and the allotment to Dr. Maria Latif was made without adherence
to the prescribed waiting list as per Clause 11.1 of the same policy.
4. On 29-05-2025, the petitioner contacted Mr. Khalid Tarir, Senior
Economist of the department, and was informed that no decision had yet
been made on her pending representation. Shockingly, on 06-06-2025,
the petitioner received information from a personal source that her
residence was being forcibly entered and her belongings removed by
department officials. Her brother-in-law rushed to the site and witnessed
Respondents No. 3 to 6, namely Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed, Mr. Sajid
Mehmood, Mr. Muhammad Usman, and Mr. Nadir Hussain, supervising
the illegal entry and removal of household items using a tractor trolley.
When the police were called to the scene via emergency call (15), the
aforementioned officials presented an unauthorized departmental
ejectment order purportedly issued by the Director General Fisheries.
This ejectment order, which had never been communicated
earlier, was found to have been issued in violation of Clause 18.1
of the Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2024,
which exclusively authorizes the Additional Secretary (Welfare),
S&GAD, to issue such orders under the Punjab Government Lands
& Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966. No lawful
inquiry or hearing was conducted, no formal declaration of unauthorized
occupancy was made, and the petitioner was deprived of the right to
appeal or defend her position before the unlawful ejectment was carried
out.
5. The illegal action was executed on a public holiday (Eid-ul-Adha) without
any formal notice or prior disclosure, and the petitioner was denied an
opportunity to protect her property or assert her legal rights. Despite
filing an application for registration of FIR at Police Station Manawan
against the unlawful dispossession and removal of her belongings, no FIR
has been registered to date. The unauthorized departmental ejectment
order, concealed until the date of forceful entry, and the formation of a
committee to carry out the dispossession, were entirely unlawful and
executed without jurisdiction, authority, or adherence to the mandatory
procedures laid down in the applicable policy and law. The actions of the
respondents have caused grave harm to the petitioner’s dignity,
property, and constitutional protections, necessitating immediate judicial
redress through this writ petition.
GROUNDS
The impugned actions of the respondents, including the cancellation of the
petitioner’s government residence allotment, issuance of notices to vacate
the residence, and subsequent physical ejectment are liable to be declared
illegal, void ab initio, and without lawful authority on multiple, independent
legal grounds.
(a) the show cause notice relied upon by the respondents was
served on 25-05-2025, after the issuance of the cancellation order
dated 23-05-2025. This sequence of events reflects a fundamental
violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was
deprived of her right to be heard before an adverse decision affecting
her vested rights was taken. The cancellation of allotment before
providing an opportunity of explanation renders the entire process
procedurally defective and constitutionally repugnant to Article 10A
of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees a fair
hearing.
(b)Secondly, the show cause notice was issued with reference to the
repealed Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2021. This
is legally untenable, as the applicable law at the time of issuance was
the Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2024, which
came into force in February 2024. The misapplication of an
inoperative statutory framework vitiates the proceedings entirely.
Even assuming the relevant clause from the 2024 policy was intended
to apply, the factual circumstances of the petitioner’s case did not
attract the provisions relied upon by the respondents. Specifically,
Clause 17(iv) of Chapter XII of the 2024 policy refers to those
allottees who, or whose families, do not physically reside in the
allotted residence for a continuous period exceeding six
months. The petitioner, however, resided in Residence No. B-8
at Fisheries Colony, Manawan, Lahore, until 25-10-2024, and
the show cause notice is dated 12-05-2025. Thus, less than six
months of continuous non-residency had elapsed, clearly
excluding the petitioner from the definition of “unauthorized
occupant” under the very clause invoked by the respondents. This
mischaracterization alone invalidates the foundational basis of the
cancellation and subsequent eviction proceedings.
(c) Thirdly, even if the petitioner had fallen within the scope of an
“unauthorized occupant” (which is denied), the mandatory procedure
for such a classification under Clause 18.2 of Chapter XII of the
2024 policy was wholly ignored. The policy requires that an inquiry
be conducted by the Estate Officer or another officer designated by
the Additional Secretary (Welfare), who must then afford the occupant
an opportunity of personal hearing and issue a written finding. In the
instant case, no such inquiry was initiated, no personal hearing was
conducted, and no reasoned determination was communicated to the
petitioner. This not only violates the policy but also deprives the
petitioner of her right to due process and the right of appeal under
Clause 18.2(b), which allows a seven-day period to challenge the
finding before the competent authority. The total absence of
procedural safeguards further compounds the illegality.
(d)Fourthly, the policy under Clause 18.2(c) prescribes that, only after a
finding is recorded, may a notice be served to vacate the premises
within fourteen days. If the occupant fails to comply, the policy
permits forcible ejectment through a proper mechanism. However, in
this case, the residence was first cancelled without hearing, and then
vacate notices were issued in reverse sequence. The third such notice,
dated 24-05-2025, was served while the petitioner’s official
representation dated 16-05-2025 remained pending and undecided,
further highlighting the non-application of mind by the department.
(e) Fifthly, and most critically, the order of ejectment dated 30-05-2025
on the basis of which the physical eviction was executed on 06- 06-
2025, was issued by the Director General, Punjab Fisheries
Department. This was in blatant violation of Clause 18.2(d) of the
2024 policy, which unequivocally provides that ejectment
orders can only be issued by the Additional Secretary (Welfare),
S&GAD. The Director General has no jurisdiction to authorize or sign
an ejectment order under this policy or under the Punjab Government
Lands & Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966. The
order is therefore coram non judice, having been issued by an
unauthorized officer and carried out in circumvention of statutory
authority.
(f) Moreover, Clause 18.2(e) and (f) of the policy mandates that
ejectment shall only be executed by the Estate Officer or Property
Manager along with an Enforcement & Vigilance Team, and with the
assistance of the DSP (Security) and local police. No such committee
was formed in the petitioner’s case. Rather, a group of departmental
officers forcibly entered the premises on a gazetted holiday (Eid-ul-
Adha), without any police coordination, and in complete disregard of
legal norms. There was no disconnection of utilities, no spot inquiry,
and no record of codal formalities, all of which are prerequisites
under the policy before ejectment can be undertaken.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the petitioner’s classification
as an unauthorized occupant was factually incorrect, procedurally void,
and legally incompetent. Each stage of the process from the backdated
show cause notice to the unauthorized ejectment order was tainted by
illegality, procedural impropriety, and violation of statutory rights.
Consequently, the entire sequence of actions culminating in the
petitioner’s dispossession is liable to be struck down as illegal,
unconstitutional, and ultra vires the law.
