MUHAMMAD NAIM Versus STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUi, J.‑‑ Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is urged that from the memo of petition it is quite clear that Respondent No.2 is carrying on business at Lahore and the impugned action was also taken at Lahore and as such this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. In so far respondents Nos.l, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, these respondents have taken up the position that they have neither blacklisted the petitioner nor they have acted upon the alleged blacklisting of petition by respondent No.2. In this connection their learned counsel have relied on the counter‑affidavits filed in the case on their behalf. In the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 4 it is categorically stated in paragraph 10 of the counter‑affidavit that neither Respondents Nos.l and 4 have acted upon the alleged blacklisting of petitioner by Respondent No.2 nor they have in pursuance of that blacklisting stopped their dealings with the petitioner. Mr. A . H . Mirza, learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 states that the position stated in para. of the counter‑affidavit of respondents Nos.l and 4 is also adopted by Respondent No.3, and further states that these respondents have n intention of blacklisting the petitioner on the basis of the letter issued by Respondent No.2. Similarly in the counter‑affidavit filed A on behalf of Respondent No.5 it is stated in paragraph 2 that they have not acted on the blacklisting of petitioner done by respond en No.2 and that they have not changed their attitude in their dealings with the petitioner after the alleged blacklisting by respondent No.2. In view of above statement contained in the counter‑affidavit and the statement made by Mr. A.H. Mirza, today in Court Mr. Sabihuddin states that his client feels satisfied with the above statements and does not press the petition against Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5. With regard to maintainability of petition against Respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of objection raised by respondent No‑2, with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court, his client withdraws this petition against respondent No.2 but reserves the right to take appropriate proceedings in the Court having jurisdiction, in accordance with the law. In view of above statement. of Mr. Sabihuddin the petition is dismissed as withdrawn wit observations that it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition against respondent No.2 if available to him under the law There will be no order as to costs.

2. M . Y . H . /M‑617/ K Petition dismissed