SC snubs housing society’s plea against IHC verdict

Justice Minallah questions linking name of project with ministry

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a plea filed by the Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society against the decision pertaining to its encroachment of a government college.

The cooperative housing society had challenged a verdict by the Islamabad High Court against its encroachment of land allocated for a state-owned college.

However, a three-judge bench of the SC, led by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, upheld the IHC’s judgment and dismissed the plea of the cooperative housing society.

During the proceedings, Justice Athar Minallah expressed his displeasure over linking the name of a housing society with a government department.

Back when he was the IHC CJ, Justice Minallah observed that titles of government ministries or divisions could not be used by private individuals to run housing societies.

In January last year, the Capital Development Authority gave cooperative housing societies using the names of ministries or government departments a period of three weeks to change their names or face strict action.

In December 2021, Justice Minallah remarked that every state institution was involved in the real estate business and the government departments were running housing societies in their names -- an act that was clearly a conflict of interests.

He added that how could the deputy commissioner take action against the Ministry of Interior Cooperative Housing Society because he himself was heading it.

On Wednesday, Justice Minallah, now an SC judge, inquired how a cooperative housing society could name itself after a ministry.

The petitioner’s lawyer maintained that there was also a Supreme Court housing society.

Justice Aminud Din Khan interjected that it was Supreme Court Employees Cooperative Housing Society.

Justice Minallah remarked that in his opinion, the Supreme Court’s name should not be used in a housing society.

Pointing out that the SC should not indulge in a private business, he asked the lawyer why was the ministry’s name used in the housing society.

The lawyer replied that if the court decided the matter, the housing society’s name could be changed.

Justice Masood noted that when the housing society’s name was not a matter of dispute in the IHC, how could the SC issue an order to change its name?

He added that since the matter had already been decided by the high court, how could the SC reopen it?

Following that, the apex court rejected the plea of the cooperative housing society challenging the IHC’s judgment on the encroached college land.