Ch. Muhammad Idrees petitioner is an Advocate by profession having his place of business at Pattoki, District Kasur whose sister Mst. Rashida Begum was married to Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4. Unfortunately the relations between the said spouses became strained and they are living apart: Expressing that Muhammad ldrees petitioner has deprived him of an amount of Rs.3,38,600, Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4 filed an application before the Khidmat Committee, Subdivision Pattoki, District Kasur to get arrested Muhammad Idrees writ petitioner and to get an order passed against him for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,38,600. Kazim Raza, Vice- Chairman Khidmat Committee, Sub-Division Pattoki, District Kasur passed the order on 23-9-1998 and 2-10-1998 for the service of Muhammad Idrees petitioner for appearance before him to defend the aforesaid petition. Muhammad Idrees petitioner did not appear before the Vice-Chairman, Khidmat Committee, Sub-Division Pattoki and chose to move this Court through the filing of this writ petition wherein he challenged the jurisdiction of the Khidmat Committee to summon him and to hear the matter pending before the Khidmat Committee. The contention of the petitioner is that the Khidmat Committee has no lawful authority or jurisdiction to summon the petitioner especially when the matter is that of civil nature and the litigation is pending before different Courts of competent jurisdiction. According to him no Criminal liability is made out against him while the respondents in connivance with each other are causing undue harassment, humiliation and mental torture because of the fact that his sister Mst. Rashida Begum has filed family suits against her husband Muhammad Mukhtar. It is proper to express that the .S.H.O. Police Station City, Pattoki, District Kasur and Chairman, Khidmat Committee, District Kasur have been arrayed as respondents Nos. l and 2.
2. In his comments Syed Kezim Raza, Vice-Chairman, Khidmat Committee expressed that he initiated the proceedings to effect the compromise between Muhammad Idrees writ petitioner and Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4. He took up the stand that he did not intend to take any action in any manner or to do any criminal act against the writ petitioner and that he was not desirous to harass, humiliate or torture him.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Syed Kazim Reza, Vice-Chairman, Khidmat Committee and Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Khidmat Committee has no jurisdiction to hear the matters of civil nature for the recovery of amount and has no power to get arrested any person through the passing of the order in the matter. On the contrary it was expressed on behalf of the respondents that the effort was made to effect the compromise between the parties and the Khidmat Committee proceeded in the matter with all the bona fides. I have to express that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to prevail.
Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4 made the application before the Khidmat Committee to recover an amount of Rs.3,38,600 from Muhammad Idrees petitioner who himself is an Advocate.
He also made the prayer before the Khidmat Committee to pass the order of arrest of the writ petitioner. I must express that the matters of civil and criminal nature are not within the domain of the Khidmat Committee for the respective settlement between the parties. The Civil and Criminal Courts are working in our country having the democratic set up. Tote power and authority to set the law in motion is linked with the substantive jurisdiction without which the proceedings cannot be initiated and, consequently, processed with even by the Civil Court or by the Criminal Court.
Even the pecuniary jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer has to play the legal role and to steal the eminence to confer the jurisdiction to proceed in such matters. Further, Civil Courts cannot proceed if no jurisdiction is invested. The jurisdiction of the Khidmat Committee to entertain and decide the disputes of civil and criminal nature has not been incorporated/finds mention in the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure respectively. This parallel judicial set-up being processed with by the Khidmat Committee, Pattoki is repugnant to the law and Constitution. This being the position of Khidmat Committee, Pattoki/ respondents Nos.2 and 3 cannot entertain and process with the petition of Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4 by summoning the adverse party and recording the evidence. Thus, no order can be passed against Muhammad Idrees writ petitioner for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,38,600 and for his arrest thereto. It is proper to give a passing remark at this stage that the formality of payment of court- fee for the recovery of the aforesaid huge amount of Rs.3,38,600 shall have to be complied with by Muhammad Mukhtar even, if he invokes the assistance of the learned Civil Court.
4. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition and hold that Khidmat Committee, Pattoki being represented by respondents Nos.2 and 3 has no jurisdiction and lawful authority for taking any action against Muhammad Idrees writ petitioner on the application of Muhammad Mukhtar respondent 8 No.4 who are restrained from processing with the aforesaid application filed by Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4. However, Muhammad Mukhtar respondent No.4 may proceed in the matter in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. In view of the circumstances of the matter, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.