MUFTAKHIRUDDIN, J.-The facts, so far as they are material at this stage for the decision of the petition are that on account of dispute over the installation of a tube-well and construction of a water tank there was difference between Habibzais and the Sulemankheyls of Killi Habibzai, Tehsil and District Pishin which led to the use of fire-arms and resulted in the loss of ife of persons belonging to both the sections of the Kakar tribe. The petitioners are Habibzai and were arrested in connection with the murder of one Abdul Khaliq son of Haji Afzal and charged under section 302/109/34, P. P. C. An application for bail was moved before the Assistant Commissioner, Pishin who had rejected the same and the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Quetta also failed but while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners the learned Additional Commissioner in his order dated 10-4-1982 observed that the matter be decided within three months. The matter was carried to the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan but the bail was refused to the petitioners vide orders dated 20-4-198-2. The offences were taken cognizance of under the provisions of Ordinance II of 1968 by the Deputy Commissioner, Pishin and the tribunal was also constituted on 22-5-1980 with Assistant Commissioner, Pishin as its Chairman. This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, read with Article 199 of the Constitution has been filed in this Court on 12-7-1982 and it has been prayed (i) that the respondent No. 3 (D. C., Pishin) be directed to constitute and refer the case to the tribunal for the trial of the petitioners, and (ii) the order dated 3-3-1982 of respondent No. 3, dated 10-4-1982 (Annexure R) of respondent No. 2 (Additional Commissioner, Quetta Division) and dated 20-4-1982 (Annexure T) of the respondent No 1 (M. B. R.) may be declared illegal and without lawful authority and the petitioner be admitted to bail:
2. To ascertain the grievance about the inaction the Deputy Commissioner a report was called for but in response to the notice the learned Advocate-General, Baluchistan appeared in Court and made a statement at the bar that tribunal had been constituted on 22-5-82 and the proceedings had been initiated but since the members of the tribunal could not attend the proceedings had to be adjourned. (This statement was based on the record received by the A.-G. From the Court and was with him on 19-7-1982 in this Court). Mr. Basharatullah, the learned counsel for the petitioners has repeated the allegations contained - in the petition before us but we have found that the petition contain misstatement of facts in that it was established that the order for constitution of the tribunal was passed in the presence of the petitioner's present attorney, namely Abbass Khan who is also facing the trial along with the petitioners. This is very unfortunate that the facts were alleged in the petition which to the knowledge of the attorney were not correct.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue which were passed on the bail application moved by the petitioners themselves. This conduct of the petitioner itself is sufficient for the dismissal of the petitioners they can not be allowed to blow hot and cold and reprobate and reprobate. There is preponderance of authorities that in the matter of discretionary relied under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court the Court is entitled to look to A the conduct of the petitioners and to refuse the relic if it finds the petitioners himself stood by at the proper time in the hope that he might achieve a favour result by participating in the alleged irregular proceedings. It is set that the order under attack has been clothed with any legality but because of the fact that the mouth of the person who has acquiesced in it is shut against it and in equity be cannot be beard to say anything against it. A person can be said to have acquiesced when he was aware or could have been aware of the defect of the jurisdiction of the tribunal with the e exercise of due diligence but did not object to the usurpation of the power by the tribunal and invited it to exercise the jurisdiction which it lacked.
If the authorities for the above view are needed (i) Haji Ghulam Nabi v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and others (PLD 1962 Kar. 786), (ii) Ghulam Mohiddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1964 SC 829), (iii) Azizur Rehman Chaudhary v.
Nasiruddin (PLD 1965 SC 236), (iv) Hafeezuddin v. Man Khadim Hussain (PLD 1965 SC 439), (v)
Muhammad Din v. Fazal Karim (PLD 1968 Lah. 544) may be referred. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have so conducted themselves as to preclude this Court from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction in their favour.
4. Since the proceedings have been drawn within the ambit of the Ordinance and cognizance has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner the common Courts of jurisdiction including the High Court shall cease to c have any kind of jurisdiction in the matter. The matters of bail can in the circumstances be" dealt with only by the Deputy Commissioner or his nominated President of the tribunal.
The upshot is that there is no merit in the petition which is ,dismissed in limine.
S.A.H.