MIR ZAMAN vs KHUDA DAD and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had held on a preliminary objection that it lacked jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The underlying matter involved a challenge to a Jirga verdict for the recovery of money, which had been approved by the Political Agent and affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. The Supreme Court examined the facts, noting that the Jirga was constituted pursuant to a written agreement signed by the petitioner, who had nominated members, undertaken to abide by the decision, admitted receipt of the amount, and signed the unanimous recommendation of the Jirga. The Court held that notwithstanding any pending constitutional question regarding territorial jurisdiction in another matter, the instant case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Peshawar High Court has jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary jurisdiction?
- Is a petition challenging a Jirga verdict a fit case for grant of leave when the petitioner participated in the agreement and signed the recommendation?
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition by the Peshawar High Court on 24th April, 1984 on the preliminary objection that the said Court had no jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition to challenge the verdict of a Jirga passed against him allowing the claim of respondent No,1 for recovery of Rs, 1,00,000 which verdict was approved by the Political Agent, Kohat, and affirmed in the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner, Kohat Division, on 18th December, 1982.
3. The narration of the facts in the Commissioner's order, however, reveals that the Jirga had been constituted in pursuance of a written agreement to which the petitioner was a party, that he had nominated a Jirga and that he had undertaken to abide by its decision. The recital further shows that the petitioner had admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs, 1,00,000 from Khuda Dad respondent and all that he had prayed was for time to repay the amount. He had also duly signed the unanimous recommendation of the Jirga.
4. For grant of leave, learned counsel urges that the constitutional question raised in the petition is similar to the one arising in Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur 1982 SCMR 433 in which leave to appeal was granted and that appeal is still pending. That may be so, but in the circumstances of the instant case we do not find it to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.