' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---Haji Qadar Gul, petitioner herein, through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has prayed that the order of respondent No,1 (Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department, N.- W.F.P., Peshawar), dated 22-8-1993, cancelling the ' Lungi' of the petitioner through Wireless message, be declared to be illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unlawful and of no legal effect and respondents 2 and 3 (Political Agent Mohmand Agency and Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad), be directed not to act upon the said order and not to delete the name of the petitioner from Electoral Roll of Mohmand Agency.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is 'Lungi' holder since 1984 and the 'Lungi' amount to the petitioner is Rs,100 per annum; that being a 'Lungi' holder the petitioner has been registered as a voter in Constituency NA.27 TA-1 Mohmand Agency at serial No,6474; that the petitioner submitted his Nomination papers before respondent No,2, Political Agent, Mohmand Agency, who also happened to be the Returning Officer for Constituency NA-27 TA-1, Mohmand Agency; that 30-8-1993 was fixed for scrutiny of the Nomination papers, and the nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected, inter alia, on the grounds that the 'Lungi' of the petitioner has been cancelled by Home Secretary N.-W.F.P., respondent No,1, vide his message, dated 22-8- 1993; that the petitioner had no right of voting because of cancellation of his 'Lungi' and no person except 'Lungi' holder could be enlisted as voter in the Federally Administered Tribal Area in accordance with the Presidential Order 1 of 1975; that the petitioner could not get copy of the Wireless message despite his best efforts; that the petitioner had challenged the order of rejection of his nomination papers before the appellate Tribunal and also before this Court in Writ Petition No,715 of 1993. The writ petition was dismissed on 30-9-1993 by this Court being not maintainable and allowed the petitioner to file a separate writ petition for challenging the cancellation of his 'Lungi' by respondent No,1, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Respondent No,1 was directed to submit comments who in his grounds stated as follows: "(1) Not correct. Lungi Allowance is not hereditary. It is earned by an individual on the basis of his good conduct and usefulness to the Administration and can be cancelled if he acts otherwise. Haji Qadar Gul has earned bad reputation of amassing wealth in drug trafficking. Hence 'Lungi'
Allowance was cancelled."
' Para. 2 reads, ' "Grant of Lungi Allowance to a tribeman is a privilege and cannot be treated as a basic legal right.
This privilege was withdrawn from Haji Qadar Gul due to his bad reputation. Hence he has no legal right of prior notice to him of the withdrawal of his Lungi Allowance, which is purely a discretionary matter of the concerned authorities."
' Para.3 reads, ' "In addition to the reply given in para.2 above, it may be stated that respondent No,1 was fully convinced that Haji Qadar Gul has involved in drug business. Therefore, his Lungi allowance was immediately cancelled through a wireless message issued to the Political Agent Mohmand."
' Para. 4 reads, ' "Grant of Lungi Allowance is not the fundamental right of the petitioner. Hence no violation of the fundamental right."
' Respondent No,3 in para. 3 of his comments on facts has stated.
' "Paragraph No,3 is denied. The Lungi Allowance of the petitioner has since been withdrawn by the Provincial Government. The petitioner has ipso facto become disqualified to be a voter under paragraph 3(2) of the Preparation of Electoral Rolls (FATA) Order, 1975.
' Para.5 reads, ' "Paragraph No,5 does not relate to the answering respondent. However, it is clarified that in consequence of cancellation of Lungi Allowance, the petitioner had become ineligible to remain registered as a voter under the existing law."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of respondent No,1 is against the principle of natural justice and equity as it was issued in violation of ' audi alteram partem'. He urged that the petitioner was neither served with a notice before cancellation of Lungi nor given a chance of hearing to explain his position. He contended that respondent No,1 has acted in utter disregard of fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of Pakistan. It was contended that respondent No,1 had no legal authority and jurisdiction to cancel the 'Lungi' of the petitioner which was conferred upon him by the Federal Government i,e,, Ministry of Safran Islamabad. The petitioner is enrolled as a voter since 1984 and had contested the election from the said Constituency in 1988 and remained as an M.N.A. Till 1990. On the other hand, Additional Advocate-General argued that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of Article 247(7) of the Constitution. It was contended that lungi allowance was neither a legal right nor can be claimed as a privilege which was withdrawn due to bad reputation of the petitioner.
5. We have given due consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.
6. We would first take up the question of jurisdiction of this Court in view of Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which reads as follows:-- ' "(7) Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court shall exercise any jurisdiction under the Constitution in relation to a Tribal Area, unless Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) by law otherwise provides; ' Provided that nothing in this clause shall affect the jurisdiction which the Supreme Court or a High Court exercised in relation to a Tribal Area immediately before the commencing day."
' This provision came under consideration before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Qaum Bangash and others v. Qaum Turi and others reported in 1991 SCMR 2400, wherein it was observed as under:--- ' "It would, therefore, be seen that the Peshawar High Court did not possess jurisdiction over any of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas even after the promulgation of P.O. No,28 of 1970 or Act No,XXVII of 1973. Kurram Agency comes within the 'Federally Administered Tribal Areas' according to the definition of the term in Article 260 of Interim Constitution and Article 246 of 1973 Constitution jurisdiction with regard to which continued to be excluded by virtue of clause (7) of Article 261 and Article 247 of the two Constitutions respectively which are identical provisions.
' No other enactment was brought to our notice extending the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court to the area in question, namely, Kurram Agency forming part of the Federally Administered Tribal Area. Therefore, it appears that the Peshawar High Court did not have jurisdiction under the Constitution in relation to the Federally Administered Trial Area until 1980 when the Constitutional petition was instituted by the appellants in this case. This appears to be the position as found in Muhammad Afzal v. Assistant Political Officer (1985 PCr.LJ (Karachi) 1784) and Khalid Pervez v.
Federation of Islamic Republic (PLD 1987 Lahore 323)."
7. The contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order was passed by the Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Home and Tribal Affairs Department in the settled area, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate this writ petition. This contention is also without any substance as the dispute relates to the Tribal area. ' Lungi' holders of the Tribal area are registered as voters in the Tribal area and on the basis thereof they become eligible to cast their vote and to contest the election from the Tribal area, therefore, in view of the expression used in the above quoted Article that the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not exercise jurisdiction 'in relation to the Tribal Area' this Court, as such, has no jurisdiction in the matter. About the aforesaid expression the apex Court in 1991 SCMR 2400, observed as follows: ' "In Abdul Rahim and others v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan and another (PLD 1974 SC 109), in somewhat similar circumstances, it was held that the expression ' in relation to Tribal area', which expression also occurs in clause (7) of Article 247 of the present Constitution, is not an expression of art with a defined meaning, but has a wide import and 'postulates of a connection of one thing with another, a nexus'. In a dispute with regard to land, it was held that the suits of the land and the residence of the two sets of claimants were decisive in the matter whether the matter related to tribal area. Also the fact that final order was passed by the Home Secretary at a place in the settled area, was found not to snap the relationship of the dispute with the Tribal area. These principles are fully applicable to the present case in which the dispute related to land situated at Kurram, the criminal offences took place in the territorial area comprised therein and the parties also resided within the Tribal area. Consequently on this score also the Peshawar High Court did not acquire jurisdiction in this matter.'
8. In view of the aforementioned Constitutional provision, we are of the opinion that this Court has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate this writ petition. We, therefore, without dilating upon the other questions agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed this writ petition on the aforesaid grounds. No order as to 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.