IJAZ ANW AR, J. - Through this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the decision of the Supreme Judicial Commission dated 22.10.2012, whereby extension has not been allowed to him as Additional Judge of the Islamabad High Court. He has sought issuance of writ with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, very humbly prayed that in view of the above mentioned statements of facts and grounds of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may please hold as under: - a. The petitioner having been appointed as Additional Judge in Islamabad High Court has legitimate expectancy of confirmation as a regular Judge of that Court. b. Supreme Judicial Commission by not referring the name of petitioner for appointment as a regular Judge has acted in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner . c. Mr. Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan was the Senior Judge of Islamabad High Court, therefore Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi could not be allowed to attend the commission proceedings and as such the commission was not properly constituted. d. The Supreme Judicial Commission, when the Chief Justice Islamabad High Court, had recommended the petitioner's name at the top of the list for confirmation, was under constitutional obligation to honor such recommendation, the silence over the matter of petitioner and non mentioning of his name and case in the minutes of the meeting is an abuse to the doctrine of the due process, and it amounts to malafide act causing deception to public at large under the colorful exercise of power and authority by the custodian of record and by the one who was responsible to sign and certificate the record of proceedings of Supreme Judicial Commission. e. Consequently the SJC proceedings dated 22.10.2012 may be declared unlawful, malafide, void ab-initio and without any legal effects against the petitioner and being so, the case of petitioner may be directed to SJC to be further referred to the Parliamentary Committee, constituted under Article 175A of the constitution for consideration and submission thereafter to the President for notification of petitioner's appointment as regular and permanent Judge of Islamabad High Court with effect from his earlier appointment. f. Any other relief which though has not specifically prayed for but found appropriate may also be directed in favour of petitioner."
2. The facts as narrated in this petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Judge in the year 1984 and served as Senior Civil Judge till 30.04.1997. He was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge and remained in the same capacity w.e.f 04.04.1997 to 12.01.2003. The petitioner was further promoted as District & Sessions Judge and remained as such w.e.f 13.01.2003 till November 2011. The petitioner has remained on different important posts in the District Judiciary , where he was posted. He was also posted as Additional Registrar (Judicial) Peshawar High Court, Additional Registrar (Legislation & Welfare) Peshawar High Court, Presiding Officer Labour Court, Mardan and Malak and Divisions. The petitioner while servin g as District & Sessions Judge under the administration of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar , was appointed as Additional Judge Islamabad High Court against a seat reserved for FATA in the year 2011. As per averments in the petition after taking oath as Additional Judge of Islamabad High Court, the petitioner discharged his duties meritoriously , honestly & with dedication. Vide letter dated 24.11.201 1, the Hon'ble Chief Justice Islamabad High Court nominated the petitioner to complete the process of independent functionality of both the Civil District & Sessions Divisions of Islamabad Capital Territory. According to him, it was due to the enormous trust over him by the then Chief Justice. It was further alleged that one Atiq-ur-Rehman Ex-Registrar Islamabad High Court, having close association with the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was transferred and when the cancellation of his transfer was regretted by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, the said Registrar entertained grudges against the petitioner and thus Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Pakistan became inimical toward him. He referred to certain events due to which the said distrust further enhanced and it was due to such circumstances that the name of the petitioner for extension or confirmation as Additional Judge of the Islamabad High Court was conspiratorially removed from the meeting of the agenda dated 22 October 2012 of the Judicial Commission and it was because of that conspiracies and animosity that the petitioner was not allowed extension as Additional Judge of Islamabad High Court.
3. In the instant case respondents were put to notice and directed to file comments. The requisite comments were accordingly filed.
4. In the comments filed by the respondents, the Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad has averred that the role of this Ministry in the appointment of the Hon'ble Judges of the superior judiciary is only to the extent of moving a summary strictly in compliance with the decision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, therefore, it has no determining role in the selection of the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court. It was further averred that under Article 175-A of the Constitution, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan has the authority to recommends or confirms any person as Judge of the High Court or Supreme Court, whatever, the case may be, thus it was within their exclusive domain to either recommend or confirm and the petitioner cannot validly object to it and the Ministry of Law and Justice only issues notification after the approval by the President of Pakistan.
5. This Court vide order dated 2.5.2017 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to prepare the case on the point of maintainability and territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the petitioner filed amended writ petition wherein almost all the Hon'ble Judges of the Islamabad High Court were arrayed as respondents, probably to wriggle out of the hurdle of jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Muhammad Muazzam Butt, advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed as Additional Judge of the Islamabad High Court in November, 2011. However, he was not dealt with in accordance with law. He was not allowed extension or confirmation by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan he referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in PLD 1997 SC-84 and contented that the petitioner was having a legitimate expe ctation for confirmation. The learned counsel next argued that as per information of his client, the name of the petitioner was duly recommended for confirmation by the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, however , perusal of the minutes of the meeting transpired that the case of petitioner was notnd even discussed and thus the commission failed in its statutory obligation to consider the petitioner in accordance with law. Learned counsel also referred to the resolution of Peshawar High Court Bar Association dated 21.11.2012 that protested against the non-confirmation of the petitioner . He relied upon CLD 2009-1498 , wherein the question of territorial jurisdiction was discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and it was held that a federal body , corporation or authority having head office at Islamabad can be sued at the choice of the aggrieved person, it was also argued that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan being a statutory body , as such, that can be sued at any place. He placed reliance on PLD 2015 Lahore-317 , PLD 2011 SC-407 , PLD 2010 SC-61 and PLD 2016 SC-961 .
Learned counsel further contended that in PLD 2016 SC-961 , the position of the petitioner was further vindicated when he was not named in the matter of illegal appointments in Islamabad High Court.
He referred to certain events that led to his non-confirmation/non-extension and alleges malafide against the then Hon'ble Chief Justice.
7. In rebuttal, the learned DAG referred to Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also referred to section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code and contended that the petitioner has remained posted at Islamabad High Court; similarly , the Judicial Commission of Pakistan is housed at Islamabad, besides the alleged cause of action also accrued to him in Islamabad, thus this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction over the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and request for dismissal of this petition. He argued that the decision of the Commission is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Arguments heard and record perused.
9. We will first take up the matter of maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court, that whether this court can intervene into the decision of the Judicial Commission taken at Islamabad beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court? Similarly , the petitioner as an additional Judge of Islamabad High Court had a cause of action there and whether the decision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan can be questioned in the High Court?
10. In order to resolve this controversy , we may refer to Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. For convenience and ready reference, relevant extracts of Article 199 may be reproduced hereunder:-
199. Jurisdiction of High Court. (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 taken 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; or
(b) on the application of any person, make an order (i)directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfi, itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner; or (ii)requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office; or
(iii) on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order giving such directions to any person or authority , including any Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II.
11. The Judicial Commission holds its sitting at Islamabad. Similarly, the decision about the fate of the petitioner to remain as Judge or otherwise was taken at Islamabad, moreso, he was also allegedly aggrieved at Islamabad being Judge of that Court. In Sabir Din vs. Government of Pakistan (1979 SCMR-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. Same view was taken in Sandalbar Enterprise (Pvt) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1997 SC-334), Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC-2389, Anood Power Generation Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC-340), 2014 SCMR 15, 2005 SCMR 1746 and PLD 2001 SC-34. Thus, it is resolved that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were examined, however , they are distinguishable as the ratio of these judgments are that the Federal Government or a body set up by the Federal Government for the whole of Pakistan performs functions in relation to the affairs of Federation in all provinces, any order passed by the Government body etc taken by it in relation to any person in any of the four provinces of country would give High Court of Province, in whose territory order would effect such a person, jurisdiction to hear case.
13. As explained above, here the situation is completely different, the alleged cause of action has arisen at Islamabad because the impugned action was taken there, thus with all respects to the pronouncements of the apex Court, they are distinguishable and are not relevant to this case.
14. Now, coming to the question about the maintainability of the petition against the decision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, this question has since been settled in number of judgments of the superior courts of the country and needs no further deliberation.
15. Following are some of the judgments where such questions were raised and the writ petitions were held not maintainable or it was held that the decision of the Judicial Commission about the fitness of a person to be appointed as Judge of the High Court or to be allowed extension to an additional Judge of the High Court or to be confirmed are the exclusive domain of the Commission and cannot be questioned at any forum. Reference can be made to cases "titled High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad through President and another vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice and Human Rights Division and others (2016 CLC 25), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and Justice, Islamabad vs. Sindh High Court Bar Association through President and another (PLD 2012 SC- 1067), Sindh High Court Bar Association, Sukkur through President vs. Pakistan through Secretary Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Justice, Islamabad and another (PLD 2012 Sindh 531) and Nadeem Ahmed Advocate vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1062).
16. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, it is held that this Court has got no jurisdiction to sit over the decision of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan besides being not maintainable; hence, this petition is dismissed.