SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J-the petitioner, who is a student of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-7-1980. PLD 1981 Pesh.
57, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by aim challenging the cancellation of his domicile certificate was dismissed.
2. The petitioner made two efforts to seek admission in the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, against the reserved seats of Tribal Area of Bajaur. In the first effort it is said that he forged a domicile certificate issued in the year 1976 to some one else but did not succeed. The second time he applied for a domicile certificate which was in fact issued to him after proper inquiry and by a competent authority. On its basis he was given admission in the College but before he could avail of it by attending the classes without his knowledge and behind his back the domicile certificate granted by the competent authority was revoked on the ground that it was not issued after proper inquiry. The petitioner challenged the revocation of the domicile certificate mainly on the ground that such an action could not have been taken by the Political Agent without associating him in the inquiry as vested rights had accrued in the meantime.
3. The learned Judges seized of the Constitutional petition were divided on the question whether in view of the bar contained in Article 247 (7) such a Constitutional petition could at all lie in respect of acts done by the Political Agent, Bajaur. The matter was referred to another learned Judge of the same Court who held that the superior Courts could not exercise jurisdiction and the Constitutional petition was not entertain able in respect of the revocation of the domicile certificate earlier issued to the petitioner.
4. Apart from the fact that the question involved in this petition con--cerns the jurisdiction of the superior Courts, this is one of the cases where the learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court initially hearing the Constitutional petition were divided and the matter had to be referred to a third learned Judge. It is also clear that the direct and immediate effect of the revocation of the domicile certificate was the cancellation of the admission of the peti--tioner in an institution which was located in territories where the jurisdiction of the superior Courts admittedly exists. We consider that this petition raise question of general public importance and relates to the jurisdiction of the superior Courts and is a fit one in which leave should be granted. We order accordingly.
5. The petitioner had been, it appears, allowed by the College authorities itself in the first instance and thereafter by the High Court to attend class subject to the decision of his claim. We direct that the same position will continue pending the disposal of this appeal. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 towards costs.