SABIR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY Of DEFENCE AND Other

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. -This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the order of dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, in a service matter. The petitioner claimed to have been promoted and duly confirmed as Deputy Assistant Military Estates Officer in the Directorate of Military Lands & Cantonments, under the Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, respondent No. 1. He was posted, it is further claimed, in the office of the Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle, Abbottabad, from where he was transferred to Muzaffarabad (Azad Jammu & Kashmir) as Deputy Military Estates Officer (Military Estates Section) which, it is stated, falls within Hazara Circle (N.-W. F. P.).

2. It is asserted from the petitioner's side that respondent No. 3 (the Departmental Promotion Committee at Rawalpindi) seemingly acting under a letter of the Establishment Division of the Pakistan Government, made recommendation for the reversion of the petitioner and three others which was approved by the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi, respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel stated that although the Office of the Hazara Circle was required to give the information about the reversion, they did not do so and in fact the petitioner learnt about it at Rawalpindi from an employee of Rawalpindi Circle.

4. The petitioner challenged the above orders of his reversal in the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking relief against the respondents for the "quashment of the order" passed by respondent No. 2. The same having been dismissed in limine on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, he has moved this petition for special leave to appeal.

5. Learned counsel has contended: that although the impugned orders were acted upon at Muzaffarabad, the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ against the respondents herein; that because of the possibility of the other High Courts refusing to exercise jurisdiction regarding a cause of action which partly arose at Muzaffarabad, the petitioner is without any remedy; that the Muzaffarabad Office of the respondents' department falls within the administrative `circle' of the Hazara Office, therefore, the Peshawar High Court has the territorial jurisdiction in the matter; and, that it is a case of `first impression' therefore, leave should be granted.

6. Learned counsel placed reliance on: Pakistan v. Waliullah Sufyani (PLD1965SC310), Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission Pakistan etc. (PLD1968SC387) , Abdul Rahim and others v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan ( PLD 1974 SC 109) and Faiz Najmud--din Abdul A.I v. Capital Development Authority ( PLD 1976 Kar. 1084)

7. The normal considerations of `residence', etc. And the `cause of action' qua territoral jurisdiction, even if attracted in the circumstances, do not support the petitioner's case. The cause of action partly arose at Muzaffarabad and partly at Rawalpindi. The Central Government, as held in the case of Waliullah Safyani, does not reside at any one place in the realm. However, the respondent No. 2 whose order (Annexure B' to the writ petition) was brought under challenge, is at Rawalpindi.

8. On this view the Peshawar High Court would have no territorial jurisdiction. The Hazara Office of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is only one chain in the administrative set up. It .Has not done anything against the petitioner nor any relief has been sought against it nor even a formal one. Indeed it has not even been impleaded as a party. That aspect of the matter either, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Peshawar High Court.

9. The question having arisen in the context of a writ petition the Peshawar High Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on another ground as well. As provided in Article 199 (1) (a) of the Constitu--petition the impugned action or the authority taking the same should be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, for exercise of jurisdiction there under. None of those conditions is satisfied herein. Therefore, the refusal by the Peshawar High Court to exercise jurisdiction is unexceptionable. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been left with no forum for seeking relief has not impressed us. There is no reason why should he not act on the observation made in the impugned order that if so advised, the Lahore High Court may be moved in this behalf. We are of the view that it is not a case of first impression. The law has already been laid down in the rulings of this Court including those cited at the Bar and qua special circumstances of this case, no separate general treatment is necessary so as to grant leave to appeal.

10. None of the arguments raised by the learned counsel has any force. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.