' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that there is a civil dispute as alleged by the petitioners between the petitioners and respondent No,1. The respondent No,1 filed application before Political Agent North Wazirastan under section 420/406/403 read with section 11 F.C.R. Of 1901. The Assistant Political Agent issued notice to the petitioners on 27-12-1987 at the addresses mentioned in the notices i,e, House No,3 Dewan Chand Abbot Road, Lahore; Anarkali, Block No, 5 Lah. And presently Sherani Plaza 15 S.C. Block 11 North Karachi. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there is certain business transaction between the petitioner and respondent No,1. Subsequently, some dispute arose between them and petitioner filed suit for recovery of amount from respondent No,1 in Karachi, which is pending adjudication. Petitioner's counsel further stated that respondent No,1 is one of the Directors of Sattar Papers Mills Kotli, Sindh but originally he belonged to North Wazirastan, therefore, he mala fide filed aforesaid complaint before the Political Agent, therefore, this Court has ample jurisdiction to quash the complaint as well as the notice. Since the notices are being executed at Lahore on the aforesaid address of the petitioners, therefore, Lahore High Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:--- PLD 1968 SC 131; PLD 1991 Pesh.
10.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney General appeared and contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction by virtue of Article 199 sub-Article 2 of the Constitution as the principle laid down by Superior Court in the following judgments: ' PLD 1999 Kar. 39; 1998 SCMR 2389; PLD 1998 Lah. 394; 1997 MLD 2770; PLD 1997 SC 334; 1997 CLC 574.
' He further stated that this Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of Article 1 of the Constitution as the North Wazirastan does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the same is not part of Province of Punjab; he urged on merits that petitioners have only challenged the vires of the notices and criminal cases cannot be decided in piecemeal; the petitioners have alternative remedies more than one to file reply of notices appeal or revision under the provisions of FCR 1901.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 stated that judgment cited by petitioners' counsel of the interregnum period; when there was no law framed regarding the tribal areas; Subsequently law as enacted by the competent body regarding the cases of tribal area; the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court was extended vide Act No, 27 of 1973 which is known at the heading of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High to the extent of jurisdiction of certain tribal areas, therefore, High Court Peshawar has only jurisdiction and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
' In rebuttal the petitioners' counsel stated that in Act No, 27 of 1973 the following areas are mentioned: "Chitral; Dir; Kallat and Malakind but North Wazirastan is not mentioned, therefore, judgment cited by me is relevant to resolve the present controversy; he further stated that it is settled proposition of law that judgment of larger Bench is followed than judgment of smaller Bench. He relied upon (1997 SCMR 1368).
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The admitted facts are as under:---
(i) Respondent No,1 filed complaint before Political Agent North Wazirastan under section 420/406/ 403 read with section 11 Frontier Crimes Regulation of 1901.
(ii) Assistant Political Agent issued notice to the petitioners on 27-12-1987 at the Lahore address of the petitioner.
' The petitioners challenged the vires of the notices. The respondents raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of writ petition before this Court by virtue of Article 199(1)(a)(ii) read with Article 1(2)(a)(b) and (c). The learned counsel of the petitioners heavily relied upon Abdul Ghani's case PLD 1968 SC 131. This case is distinguished on facts and law as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not decided this question of law in the cited judgment as is evident from the following observation of the cited judgment:--- "The learned Advocate-General appearing for the Government of West Pakistan has been candid enough to say that the office of the Deputy Commissioner has inadvertently used a form prescribed under Order V, rule 1, C.P.C. For issuance of summons in these cases. He has, therefore, found it difficult to contend that Mr. Razaullah Khan acted within his power in issuing such summons.
' The learned Attorney-General appearing for the Government of Pakistan, has also conceded that the officer concerned had no authority to issue such summons. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that Mr. Razaullah Khan, the Assistant Political officer, exercising the power of the Deputy Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned summons. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to decide in these cases whether he had power to issue summons to a person residing outside North-Wazirastan. The learned counsel for the respondents has not challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ in such a case."
' To resolve the controversy between the parties it is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant Articles of the Constitution:--- ' Article 199(1)(a)(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect."
(2) The territories of Pakistan shall comprise---
(a) the Province of Baluchistan, the North West Frontier, the Punjab and Sindh,
(b) the Islamabad Capital Territory, hereinafter referred to as the Federal Capital;
(c) the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and Mere reading of the aforesaid Article of the Constitution it clearly reveals that this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the impugned notice issued by the Assistant Political Agent North Wazirastan.
This question of law has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the following judgments as argued by the learned counsel of the respondents.
1. 1998 SCMR 2389.
3. 1997 MLD 2770.
4. PLD 1997 SC 334.
5. 1997 CLC 574.
7. 1994 MLD 831.
8. 1985 SCMR 758.
9. PLD 1968 SC 387.
10. 1991 SCMR 494.
11. 1994 MLD 831.
' These judgments are also distinguished as none of the cited judgments relates to the Tribal Areas.
The Peshawar High Court has exercised jurisdiction in such matters in Nabi Bakhsh's case PLD 1991 Peshawar 10 by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Colin in Ch. Manzoor Elahi's case PLD 1975 SC 66. It is admitted fact that the South Wazirastan Agency falls under the Federally Administered Tribal Areas by virtue of Article 246(c)(x) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court are exclusively barred by virtue of Article 247(7) of the Constitution. The Article 246(7) was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Siddique's case 1981 SCMR 1022 and observed as under:--- "Bar of jurisdiction of the superior Courts appears to exclude their jurisdiction only in these matters which are exclusively concerned with Tribal Areas and the ouster clause cannot be interpreted so as to exclude the jurisdiction of superior Courts in matters in which any part of the cause of action accrues or any effective action or step is taken or performed in, or at a place out side the Tribal Areas, affecting the life, liberty or property of a citizen of Pakistan or any other person for the time being in Pakistan and having the right to be governed by the ordinary law of the land and in accordance with the procedures obtaining thereunder".
' The word "jurisdiction" was also interpreted keeping in view Article 247(7) and observed in Said Jamal's case (1992 MLD 2043) that the jurisdiction is a word which may be used with either withdraw or a narrower cannot and it will be a narrower connotation when it is in relation to Tribal Areas. The aforesaid Article was also interpreted keeping in view the legislative history of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Qaim Bakhsh's case 1991 SCMR 2400 and observed as under:--- "As regards the argument that Federally Administered Tribal Areas form part of Pakistan, therefore, they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the superior Courts, it is sufficient to state that under clause (7) of Article 247, the Constitution has expressly excluded the jurisdiction of these Courts in relation to the Tribal Areas, unless the Parliament by law otherwise provides. As discussed above there is no Act of Parliament providing otherwise in respect of the Federally Administered Tribal reas of N.-W.F.P. And the superior Courts did not exercise jurisdiction in such areas immediately before the commencing day of the Constitution. The contention is therefore, devoid of merit."
' It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners did not attach copy of the complaint filed by the respondents except the report No, 31 of Roznamcha dated 11-3-1998 at Police Station New Anarkali which reveals that there is business dispute between the Petitioner No,1 and respondent No,1.
Petitioner No,1 has also filed a suit for recovery against respondent No,1 in Karachi.
In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners are granted protective bail for one month from today subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar(J) of this Court to enable them to move the competent Court for bail or to avail other remedies available to them. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.