' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---This is a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal against the judgment, dated 15-3-2000 of Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in C.M. No.421 of 2000 in Writ Petition No.2586 of 1997.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed in the abovementioned writ petition, petitioner the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the High Court urging that the application be allowed and the said judgment be set aside as it has been obtained through fraud, misrepresentation and without jurisdiction. However, this application was entertained for preliminary hearing alongwith Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.171-W of 1999 moved by the respondent No.1 Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Private) Limited against the petitioner under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan vide order, dated 8-12-1999 on the undertaking given by counsel for the petitioner to deposit the principal amount in compliance with the judgment in the writ petition with the Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
3. The petitioner assailed this order in leave to appeal before this Court through Civil Petition No.99 of 2000 and leave to appeal was refused and the said application was dismissed on 24-1-2000.
4. Relevant facts leading to the filing of his petition are that in pursuance of decision of Economic Coordination Committee of the cabinet meeting, dated 8-4-1996 the, petitioner invited tenders for import of one lac metric ton 'sugar, white refined sugar/white crystal sugar and invited bids supported with 2% bid bond money up to 11-5-1996. The tenders submitted by respondent No.1 and others for supply of one lac metric tons white refine sugar of American, Europe and Brazil Origin at the rate of US$ 460 per metric ton were opened on 11-5-1996 which could not be approved and the same were found deviating from tender terms, therefore, revised tender as per petitioner's requirement were invited which were opened on 18-5-1996. The offer of respondent No.1 with deposit of 2% bid bond being the lowest was accepted and consequently an amount of Rs.1,38,95,000 as earnest money for supply of 50,000 metric ton white granulated can sugar of Indian Origin and the remaining 50,000 metric ton of South Central America origin at the rate of US$ 383.00 was deposited.
5. The shipment was to be made within thirty days from the receipt of the letter of credit. The offer of respondent No.1 was forwarded to Kitchen Committee on the subject in the compliance of Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad. The respondent No.1 with his offer provided a bid bond on behalf of Mis. Euro Equity (UK) Limited as a principal and later through a letter, dated 19-5-1996 changed the name of its Principal to Bags Handles Ges M.B.H Vienna. The letter of intent at the above rate was issued in his favour on 20-5-1996.
6. As per letter of intent and terms of contract respondent No.1 had to provide a performance bond equal to 5% of the total amount in favour of petitioner within seven days for the purpose of opening letter of credit. In the meanwhile, it transpired that import of sugar from India was not possible as the same was exclusively being exported by a Corporation known as Indian Sugar and General Industry Export Corporation Limited which was confirmed through letter, dated 24-4-4996 written by Commercial Consul of Pakistan in India to the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad. In such situation respondent No.1 went on requesting repeatedly that they may be allowed to import sugar from Brazil or South Africa as per terms of tender but petitioner and respondent No.2 refused the same. Consequently petitioners by taking stand with respondent No.2 committed breach of contract, forfeited his bond money and encashed Bank gurantee. It was stated that prior to the above action petitioner entered into contract of supply of sugar with abovenamed Indian Company through Commerce Consular of Pakistan on the direction of Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad respondent No.2. The respondent remained pursuing his matter by making representations continuously with the petitioner and Ministry of Commerce, for the performance of contract in terms thereof but respondent No.2 through letter, dated 23-7-1996 informed that his representation, dated 29-5-1997 and the request for the refund of bind bond money could not be acceded to. Accordingly he was left with no option but to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and challenged the above action through abovementioned petition. The High Court declared above action illegal and of no legal effect and remanded the matter back to respondent No.2, for decision on representation of respondent No.1 afresh in accordance with clause 12 of the Contract and for referring the matter to arbitrator after hearing the parties within one month and the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.1,38,95,000 the amount of Bank Guarantee in the National Bank of Pakistan, within the said period. It was also directed that the amount in question shall be paid to the parties it would be found entitled thereto at the finalization of matter through arbitration or any other manner acceptable to the parties and if the needful was not done within the above period the amount of bid bond would stand returned to the respondent No.1 with interest.
7. The above judgment was assailed before this Court through C.P.L.A. No.410 of 1999 which was dismissed on 27-10-1999 as being time-barred. After dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal by this Court petitioner filed review petition before the High Court which was delayed by one year and one and half month which too was dismissed as being time-barred. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the instant application before the High Court which was also dismissed on 15-8-2000.
8. Mr. Mansoor Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition inter alia, contended that writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench .Was not maintainable and lacked territorial jurisdiction mainly on the ground that both parties the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited and the Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Private) Limited are based at Karachi and usually run their business at Karachi and the contract between them the subject- matter of dispute was executed at Karachi and subsequent transaction was also entered at Karachi. He next argued that a civil suit filed by the petitioner on the same subject-matter is pending b,:tfore the Sindh High Court at Karachi in its original jurisdiction and unless the same is finally decided the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench has no legal effect. In view of such position the High Court at Karachi has the jurisdiction and the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench has no concurrent jurisdiction to decide the matter. According to him, respondent No.1 by concealing the material facts has obtained the decision by means of fraud and misrepresentation.
9. On the other side Raja Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that petitioner is a full owned Government Corporation which is engaged generally in trading for and on behalf of respondent No.2, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan including procurement of sugar and has thus earned the status of agency of the Federal Government. In written statement filed in writ petition the petitioner had mentioned that the offer for supply of sugar by respondent No.1, the matter relating to the refund of bid bond money and representations were also referred to the respondent No.2. It was because of these reasons respondent No.2 was sued in the petition. He referred Letter No.10(1)/95-Imp.III (Vol.11), dated 23-7-1997 which reveals that the representation about the refund of bid bond money was ultimately rejected by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan,' thus, the cause of action had arisen at Islamabad and High Court Rawalpindi Bench had the concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. In support he referred the case of Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad (1997 SCM R 1874).
10. It is pertinent to note that petitioner in this petition has on its own mentioned that it is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Ordinance and operates from Karachi and undertakes import and export of various items to maintain the stability of the prices in the market on the instructions of Government of Pakistan. It is further confirmed from the above facts that the tenders were called on 5-5-1996 on the decision of Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet at Islamabad. Not only this but after calling the revised tenders the revised offers of eight participants in number were opened on 8-5-1996 in the petitioner's Board room in presence of the tenderers' and the details of offer so received were sent to the kitchen items review committee in the Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad where after review offer of the respondent No.1 was found the lowest and was accepted. As stated in the facts above the offer of the respondent was turned down as Government of India through Indian Sugar and General Industries Export Corporation Limited entered into contact of export of sugar with Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad. Rejection of the representation further confirms that respondent No.2 has the dominion over the matters of petitioner. Moreover, the decision of the writ petition of High Court wherein the point of jurisdiction was raised attended finality as leave to appeal was refused to the petitioner by this Court being time-barred. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in Chambers has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter in the judgment in writ petition and has held that the respondent No.1 having use of action against Federal Government could bring the Constitution petition either at Karachi or at Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the objection of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that affairs of Trading Corporation of Pakistan are being controlled by the Ministry of Commerce at Islamabad. Before the High Court the relief was not only claimed against the petitioner but was also claimed against the respondent No.2, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan at Islamabad as such the petition was competently filed.
11. Similar aspect of the case came up for consideration before this Court in the case Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Limited (supra). An objection was raised, by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the Rawlpindi Bench, Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction in the case as the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by Collector of Customs and Central Excise functioning at Peshawar.
It was contended that relief was claimed against the Central Board of Revenue which functions at Islamabad, therefore, the High Court at Peshawar and Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. Contention was found convincing and it was held that both Courts had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter.
From what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that both Courts at Karachi as well as Rawalpindi have the jurisdiction in the matter and remedy can be resorted in either of them. Thus, Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench had concurrent jurisdiction to decide the matter. Accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
Consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.