Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of decision dated 13.11.2017 passed by Respondent No, 4 as well as decision dated 08.09.2017 passed by Respondent No, 5 to the extent of dismissal of appeal by the petitioner.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is an International Cricketer making his debut for Pakistan in 2013. He was charged by Pakistan Cricket Board/Respondent No, 3 for committing violation of its Anti-Corruption Code. The petitioner was required to appear before Respondent No, 3 pursuant to the referred violation and was accordingly charged and the matter was referred to the Anti-Corruption Tribunal of Respondent No,
3. Trial was duly conducted, after conclusion of which, the petitioner was held responsible for the offences/violations charged. He preferred an appeal before Respondent No, 4, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.11.2017.
3. In the petition, pre- admission notices were issued to the respondents on 23.01.2018 for 21.02.2018.
On the said date, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3, at the very outset, raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel contended that 'dominant object' is at Lahore inasmu ch the proceedings of the Tribunal as well as Appellate Forum were conducted at Lahore and even the Principal Office of Respondent No, 3 is at Lahore. It was contended that Islamabad has no nexus with the matter. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on cases reported as 'Messrs AIR CIRO through Senior Partner vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Aviation Division, Islamabad and 5-others' (2008 YLR 164), `Shahrukh Aamir Ubaid vs. National Highway and Motorway Police' (2017 PLC (CS) 368) as well as `Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Revenue and others' (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 334).
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia, contended that this Court has the jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch Respondent No, 3 falls within the supervision/ control of Respondent No,
2. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on cases reported as 'Rashid Latif vs. Federation of Pakistan etc." (PLD 2014 Sindh 35) & 'Danish Kaneria vs. Pakistan and others' (2012 CLC 389).
5. Learned Deputy Attorney General supported the objection raised by learned counsel for the Respondent No, 3 and inter alia contended that in light of dictum laid down in cases reported as PLD 1997 Supreme Court 334 and 2012 PTD 1869, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
6. The arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the relevant documents have been examined with their able assistance.
7. The petitioner, in the instant petition, is aggrieved of the decision of Disciplinary Tribunal of Respondent No, 3 as well as the appellate forum, whereby he has been found guilty of fences charged and have been punished accordingly.
8. Since by way of preliminary objection, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 as well as learned Deputy Attorney General has raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court, therefore the arguments were addressed on this issue, as it goes to root of the matter.
9. The petitioner seeks setting aside of decisions dated 8.9.2017 & 13.11.2017 handed down by Respondents No, 4 & 5.
10. The bare perusal of the relevant documents and the decisions rendered by referred respondents, shows that the petitioner was notices and was called to face the proceedings by Respondent No, 3 at Lahore. The entire proceedings before the Independent Adjudicator as well as Tribunal took place at Lahore and even, as mentioned above, decisions were rendered at Lahore. In the referred backdrop, it is worthwhile to look at the case law on the subject to determine, whether this Court has the jurisdiction in the matter along with Lahore High Court.
11. In somewhat similar circumstances, a petition was brought before this Court in case reported as 'Messrs AIR CIRO through Senior Partner vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Aviation Division, Islamabad and 5 others' (2008 YLR 164), in which, the question of territorial jurisdiction was also raised. This Court, in the said judgment, placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in case titled M/s Sethi and Sethi Sons vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others' (2012 PTD 1869), which in turn, had examined the relevant law on the subject.
On the basis of the referred judgment of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, this Court observed as follows: "6. The test laid down in the referred judgment is regarding dominant object of the petitioner in the writ petition. There is no cavil with the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, the same are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant principle for determining jurisdiction of a High Court in which the matter can be agitated where apparently two or more High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction is the dominant object in the petition. It is also relevant to observe that the position of Islamabad High Court is somewhat different from other High Courts inasmuch as they have jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to the affairs of Federation, Province or a Local Authority within their territorial jurisdiction whereas Islamabad being the Capital wherein the Islamabad High Court exists and exercises jurisdiction over Islamabad Capital Territory it does not have jurisdiction pertaining to the affairs of provinces"
In light of above judgment of this Court, Islamabad High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the cases pertaining to the Federation as well as Islamabad Capital Territory (instead of province).
12. Similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Lahore High Court in case reported as `Shahrukh Aamir Ubaid vs. National Highway and Motorway Police' (2017 PLC (CS) 368). After discussion of the relevant case law, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court observed as follows:-- "13. From the perusal of the instant petition(s), arguments of the learned counsel and documents annexed therein, the primary dominant object of filing these constitutional petitions is the appointment at the position of Junior Patrol Office on Minority Punjab Quota by the Respondent, addressed at Islamabad. Hence, after examining the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court is of the opinion that both institutions, the Respondent and Balochistan Testing Service, fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, do not function within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Importantly, issuance of writ is an extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court and is invoked when stipulations in the Constitution for its issuance are met. The Petitioner(s) have failed to satisfy that this High Court could exercise jurisdiction against respondent who were neither appointed nor carrying out their duties, with respect to the matter at hand, within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, whereby this High Court could exercise jurisdiction".
13. Even the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not substantiate the arguments advanced by him. In case reported as 'Danish Kaneria vs. Pakistan and others' (2012 CLC 389), the Hon'ble Sindh High Court observed that it has become a common practice to file Constitution Petitions either at Karachi, Peshawar, Rawalpindi or Multan to challenge the orders passed by an authority, which is situated outside the jurisdiction of such High Court. Similarly, the case law reported as Rashid Latif vs. Federation of Pakistan etc." (PLD 2014 Sindh 135), is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of instant case.
14. In the instant case, the 'dominant object' of the petitioner is setting aside of decisions dated 08.09. 2017 and 13.11.2017 passed by Respondents No, 4 & 5. All the referred respondents are at Lahore and the entire proceedings of the Tribunal as well as Appellate Forum took place at Lahore.
There is no document or correspondence showing any nexus of the proceedings initiated by Respondent No, 3 with Respondent No, 2, hence the 'dominant object' is at Lahore.
15. In view of above, since the dominant object is to challenge the above decisions, therefore instant petition is not maintainable before this Court hence same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. Since the petition has been dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction therefore no observation is made with respect to merits of the case.