' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against an order of the Sindh High Court, dated 21-8-2003 passed in C.P. No,D-1375 of 2002 dismissing the same for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 31-10-2000 to the Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise, Rawalpindi informing him about the evasion of excise duty by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, Headquarters, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as P.T.C.L.). While referring to the balance sheets of the Company for the years 1996-97 to 1998- 99, petitioner made a disclosure of fact that the P.T.C.L. Was not paying Central Excise Duty in respect of overseas calls made from Pakistan at the prescribed rate of excise duty thereby causing huge loss of revenue. As per calculation of the petitioner. P.T.C.L. Evaded an amount of Rs,16, 95,22,57,150 in the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. During the course of arguments before the Federal Tax Ombudsman, petitioner's husband, as representative, claimed that a sum of Rs,4,91,517.25 was short deposited by way of Central Excise Duty. She also alleged that P.T.C.L. Was guilty of evasion of Central Excise Duty on international calls terminating in Pakistan amounting to Rs,3, 520,555,450. The third item of evasion of Central Excise Duty was in respect of trade debts, which, according to the balance sheets up to 30-6-1999 stood at Rs,24,58,96,17,000. She further complained that duty was not being charged on services rendered through telex, telephone and other services. As no response was received by the petitioner from the Collector, she filed a complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman which was disposed of with the observation that the CoRectorate of Sales Tax had already taken action and settled the matter up to June, 1998 with P.T.C.L. Whereas action for subsequent period was in hand. Consequently, petitioner was not found entitled to any reward.
3. Being dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal against it before the President of Pakistan, which was entertained as representation against the decision of the Ombudsman in terms of section 32 of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. Lastly, petitioner received an intimation dated 17-10-2001 from Section Officer, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division that President vide his order, dated 11-10-2001 was pleased to reject the representation because the same did not raise any question of maladministration. Petitioner addressed a number of letters for supply of a copy of the order of the President, dated 11-10-2001, but without any success, therefore, she filed writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Sindh High Court, which, on contest, has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. In the memo. Of writ petition, petitioner prayed for following reliefs:-- "(i) Issue direction to the respondents to furnish certified copy of the order of the President within a period as may be specified by the Honourable Court in its order.
(ii) Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
4. The grounds, which found favor with the High Court appear to be that under Article 199 of the Constitution, requirement of clause (a)(i) for issuance of a direction is that the person to whom the direction is sought must be performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, Province or a local authority within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Learned High Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Court to issue direction was confined to the persons who may be performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority within its territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, cause of action, or part thereof did not accrue to the petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Court as complaint for evasion of sales tax etc. Was filed at Rawalpindi; that the matter was examined by the Federal Tax Ombudsman at Islamabad; that the representation was made at Rawalpindi. Consequently, the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, the High Court concluded.
5. We have heard Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length whereas Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General has entered appearance pursuant to notice issued by this Court.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that case of the petitioner would fall under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution and not under sub-clause (ii) of the abovesaid Article.
Essentially, the learned counsel contended that the question of territorial jurisdiction raised by the High Court was completely irrelevant as the President of Pakistan performs his functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation throughout the country and every High Court is competent to issue a direction as contemplated by Article 199 of the Constitution. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, relevant extract of Article 199 may be reproduced hereunder:-- "199. (1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court, may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--
(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial, jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or
(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding Uken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect;"
7. Learned counsel was questioned by' this Court whether the impugned order of the President was passed at Islamabad or within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court, to which he could not make any satisfactory reply but was obliged to concede that indeed such order was passed at Islamabad in the President Secretariat. When called upon to meet the legal bar persuading the High Court not to exercise its equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction in favor of the' petitioner.
Learned counsel was unable to cite any judgment except Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 387. This was a case in relation to Article 98(2)(a)(i) read with Article 153 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) holding the view that Election Commission constituted under Article 153 was amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court of East Pakistan though its main office and Secretariat were located in West Pakistan. In the facts and circumstances before the High Court of East Pakistan and in the context of Article 153 of the Constitution, 1962 and with reference to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, it was held that the plain meaning of the word "a person performing in the Province functions in connection with the affairs of the Centre" excluded territorial limitation such as that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be amenable to Its jurisdiction either by residence or location within these territories, which followed from the phrase: "To any person or authority, including inappropriate cases any Government, within those territories" in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
8. Upon perusal of this precedent, we find that any decision or observation relating to the maintainability of a Constitutional petition beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court on consideration of the provisions of Articles 98 and 153 of the Constitution, 1962 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution would neither be relevant nor be of any assistance to the petitioner in seeking extension of jurisdiction of the High Court beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The language employed in the Articles of the Constitution, which were considered in the reported cases is not on all fours with the language used in Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973. Conversely, in Sabir Din v.
Government of Pakistan 1979 SCM R 555 it was authoritatively held that as provided in Article 199(1)
(a) of the Constitution, the impugned action of the authority making the same should be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. In Sandalbar Enterprise (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1997 SC 334 while distinguishing Messrs Al- Iblagh Limited, Lahore v. The Copyright Board, Karachi 1985 SCM R 758, this Court observed that a perusal of sub-clause (a)(i) of Article 199(1) indicates that a High Court has power to issue'a direction to a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do or to do anything he is required by law to do within its territorial jurisdiction. This view was reaffirmed in Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1998 SCM R 2389 and Anoud Power Generation Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340.
9. For the aforesaid facts, reasons and circumstances, we do not find any legal flaw in the judgment of the High Court, which is not open to any exception and does not call for any interference in the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.