' The petitioner, Essullah Bhatti, was an employee of Civil Aviation Authority (hereinafter to be called as Authority). According to the learned counsel, the petitioner pointed out certain irregularities and malpractices on 2-1-1992 vide Annexure 'A', which were allegedly committed by the respondent, Zia Ullah Shaikh, Airport Manager, Quetta. It is stated that the said officer was annoyed with the petitioner on account of his complaint. The petitioner. Was, accordingly, directed to submit an explanation about the complaint which he lodged. A detailed reply was given by the petitioner vide Annexure 'C' explaining his position. The explanation of the petitioner was, however, not accepted by the respondents. Another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30-3-1992 vide Annexure 'D' disclosing that he remained absent from his duty and that he was asked to furnish explanation in this behalf. The petitioner explained by sending reply that he could not join his duty on account of his serious illness. He further stated that he gave an intimation in advance to the respondents through a telegram. The respondent No,6 was not satisfied with the explanation so given by the petitioner. In consequence, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent on 3-9-1992. The order of dismissal from service was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which was rejected on 11-11-1992 vide Annexure 'I..' by the departmental authority.
These orders have been assailed by the petitioner by filing this Constitution petition before this Court.
2. It is contended that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from his service was without lawful authority inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him by the respondent-authority and that it was proved on record that the petitioner was lying sick and as such could not attend his office. A prayer was made by the petitioner for his reinstatement in service in the given situation. Learned Deputy Attorney-General without touching the merits of the case has raised a preliminary objection stating that this Court is not competent to hear and decide the petition because admittedly the respondents are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is argued that Head Office of the Authority is situated in Karachi. He continues to say that the cause of action arose to the petitioner for the first time at Quetta when he was dismissed from 11:3 service. This being so, according to him, the Constitution petition could only be competently filed either before the Sindh High Court or before the Balochistan High Court. To support his plea, learned Law Officer relies upon Messrs Al-Ablagh Limited, Lahore v. The Copyright Board, Karachi and others 1985 SCM R 758; Asghar Hussain v. The Election Commission, Pakistan etc. PLD 1968 SC 387 and Messrs Brady & Co. (Pakistan) Limited v. Messrs Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd. 1981 SCM R 494.
He also relies upon section 20, C.P.C. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent No,1 resides and performs his functions at Islamabad and as such this petition had rightly been instituted for its hearing at Lahore. Asghar Hussain's case was also relied upon by him in support of his arguments. Learned counsel states that this, petition was admitted to regular hearing by overruling the objection of the office about the maintainability of the petition at Lahore.
No other point was raised by the learned counsel.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length on the aforesaid preliminary objection. The admitted position which emerges is that all the contesting-respondents are not residing and performing their functions within the jurisdiction of this Court and further, the Head Office of the Authority is situated at Karachi. It is evident from the pleadings that the substantial relief is being sought by the petitioner only against respondents Nos.2 to 6 and certainly not against respondent No,1. The respondents, General Manager and the Director (Administration) are doing their duties at Karachi while the Zonal Manager resides and performs his functions at Quetta. It is conceded by the learned counsel that service of the petitioner was terminated by the General Manager (Personnel), Karachi. In other words, the cause of action has arisen to the petitioner both at. Quetta and Karachi. It is well-settled that C.P.C. Would apply to the proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. Thus, section 20, C.P.C. Applies to this case. No relief has been sought by the petitioner against respondent No,1. The other respondents reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court as pointed out above. This being so, under the provisions of C.P.C. The petitioner may avail of the remedy open to him for redress of his grievance either by moving the Sindh High Court or the Balochistan High Court. The point that this petition was admitted by overruling the objection of the office about jurisdiction of this Court could not be taken to be a final decision in the dispute. This was just the tentative view of this Court at the limine stage. The objection in respect of jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal may be raised by a party at any stage of the hearing of the case. A Court can proceed to hear a case only if it has the jurisdiction to do so.
Thus, the rule of waiver shall not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. The point thus merits no serious consideration and as such is repelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the rule laid down in Asghar Hussain's case (Supra) to contend that the Authority is a person like Election Commission of Pakistan and as such writ could issue to the authority because it performs its functions throughout Pakistan. The argument is fallacious on the face of fit inasmuch as in the referred case an election in a local constituency was held and its result was assailed by the candidate who failed in the said election. In other words, cause of action arose to the failed candidate in the then East Pakistan. In this view of the matter, it was held by the learned Supreme Court that Dacca High Court was competent to hear and decide the matter. In my view, this authority does not at all advance the case of the petitioner. On the contrary; it would fully apply to the facts and, circumstances of this case to uphold the view that the writ in hand would be competent only in the High Court within whose jurisdiction cause of action arose. In the case in hand, cause of action as already stated above, arose both within the jurisdiction of Sindh High Court and Balochistan High Court. The law laid down in Messrs Al-Ablagh Limited will also be attracted to this case because it was held in that case that Sindh and Lahore High Courts would have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the dispute as cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of both the High Courts simultaneously. The petitioner was admittedly dismissed from service when he was holding his office at Quetta and that his appeal was heard and rejected by the competent departmental authority at Karachi. It is also admitted that nothing happened at Lahore in respect of service matter of the petitioner, and as such, Messrs Al-Ablagh's case will also go against the petitioner. To the same effect is the rule laid down in Messrs Brady and Company's case because no part of cause of action arose at Lahore to justify to file this petition in Lahore High Court. In these circumstances, the remedy open to the petitioner for the requisite relief certainly does not lie before this Court. This being so, accepting the validity of the objection of the learned Law Officer, this petition shall be returned to the petitioner for its presentation before the learned competent Court in accordance with law. With these remarks, this petition is disposed of.