JUDGMENT SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.- Order dated 17.6.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioners have been directed to electrify and energise the premises of respondent No. 2, has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 primarily on the ground that the District & Sessions Judge or respondent No. 1 to whom the matter was later entrusted, had no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter to issue such a direction.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The order impugned was passed by respondent No. 1 pursuant to an application which was entrusted and marked to him by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sargodha. It may be observed that through the reply filed by the petitioners, certain jurisdictional and factual aspects of the matter had been raised. The jurisdiction of the learned District & Sessions Judge was sought to be invoked in the nature of a complaint alleging violation of Human Rights which was entirely misconceived inasmuch as, the Court can exercise only such jurisdiction qua a subject-matter, person or lis, as is conferred by law. It is so provided by Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which reads as follows:-- "Article 175. Establishment and jurisdiction of Courts.
(1)........
(2) No Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law."
In Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution and another v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 32) while drawing distinction between "ancillary Vincidental" power and "inherent" jurisdiction of a Court, it was observed that "This should not be confused with what is sometimes, claimed as the "inherit" jurisdiction of a Court, a claim which is no longer tenable in view of clause (2) of Article 175 of the Constitution. What is "inherent" is an inseparable incident of a thing or an institution in which it inheres".
Indeed, it is obligatory rather mandatory for a Court in the first instance to satisfy itself about the existence of its jurisdiction and power to decide the matter brought before it but this aspect was not adverted to by respondent No. 1 who summarily passed the impugned order and issued the impugned directions, without even giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stances. Such a summary disposal of a matter when the very existence of jurisdiction of the Court was disputed and objected to is not warranted by law. Suffice it to observe that the order passed by illegally assuming jurisdiction would be unwarranted by law and a nullity.
Thus, respondent No. 1 acted without jurisdiction in passing order dated 17.6.2005 and issuing directions, whose jurisdiction did not extend to any such matter, In case respondent No. 2 had any legitimate and valid grievance, he had the statutory forum available under the law to agitate the matter but erroneously invoked the jurisdiction of the learned District & Sessions Judge of the District in the matter. Since the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 lacked the backing of any contemporaneous law on the subject, the order is not sustainable in law which is declared as of no legal effect.
The petition is accepted with the above observation with no order as to costs.