' SALEEM AKHTART, J.---Both these petitions will be disposed of by this order as common question of law and facts are involved. In Petition No, 277/93, petitioner having obtained the Degree of B.Sc.
From the University of Peshawar in the year 1985, got admission in Manual Luis Quezon University, Philippines in October 1988 and graduated in the Electrical Engineering from the said University on 20th July, 1991. The petitioner applied from registration of his foreign qualification in the Electrical Engineering to the respondents in April 1992. It was alleged that till 1991 several Pakistanis, who had graduated in different disciplines of engineering from the same University were registered by the Pakistan Engineering Council, the respondent. The request of the petitioner was refused on the ground that the said University had been de-recognised, and therefore, his foreign qualification could not be registered. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court of Peshawar, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment on the ground that as the Pakistan Engineering Council, the respondent and its functionaries have performed the impugned acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the petition.
2. Mr. Qazi Anwar learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that under Article 199 (1) (a) (i) of the Constitution, it is not necessary that the respondent should have an office within the territorial jurisdiction or that cause of action may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. According to the learned counsel, it is sufficient that the person or authority against whom petition has been filed, is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. The main criterion, according to the learned counsel, is performance of functions, which can be done even without having an office. The learned counsel has referred to Asghar Hussain v. The Election Commission Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 387), The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, West Zone, Chittagong v. Imdad Ali (1969 SCM R 708), Abdul Ghaffar Lakhani v. Federal Government of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 1986 Karachi 525). He has also referred to contrary view expressed in The Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Ataul Haq (PLD 1965 SC 201) and Asghar Hussain v. The Election Commission, Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 Dacca 586). The question raised in the petition relates to the interpretation of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the High Court. Leave is granted.
2. Similar question has arisen in Civil Petition No,4-P of 1994, which according to the office is barred by time. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. Leave is granted subject to objection of limitation.