1. TARIQ MAHMOOD, J.--- Facts briefly mentioned are that petitioner is one of the Directors of Shah Jewana Mills Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, with its registered office at Lahore. Company availed a loan from United Bank Limited, Faisalabad and petitioner is alleged to be the one of the guarantors. Record reveals that as Company failed to discharge its liability, therefore, a suit for recovery of Rs.691,998,000 alongwith mark-up was instituted in the Honourable Lahore High Court, which was decreed on 8-2-2000 against Company and owners including petitioner, on the basis of compromise. Further facts are that petitioner is a Pilot employed with Pakistan International Airlines and posted at Lahore/Islamabad. He was selected to attend a training course in the United Kingdom, which was due to start on 14-3-2000. It is the case of petitioner that enquiry revealed that his name appeared in the Exit Control List, having been reported as a defaulter. Accordingly, he filed Constitutional Petition No.3390 of 2000 in the Lahore High Court, wherein following order was passed:--- "The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that loangranted by the United Bank Limited to Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd., has since been reschduled and a decree has also been passed in favour of the Bank and that the Schedule for re-payment is being adhered to. The learned counsel further says that the petitioner has to go abroad for attending a training course in the United Kingdom and he undertakes to come back as soon as .The course is finished in about three weeks' time.
(2) In this view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to go abroad provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.10 million to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar (J.) of this Court that the petitioner shall return to Pakistan within a period of one month from his exit.
2. Disposed of in the above terms."
3. It is also the case of petitioner that after furnishing requisite security, he went to London but unfortunately could not complete the course, due to some incident resulting injury on his spinal cord. Petitioner further pointed out that he is getting another chance to complete the course but came to know that. His name still appears in the Exit Control List. It is pertinent to point out that Managing Director of Shah Jewana Textile Mills namely Faisal Saleh Hayat was arrested by the National Accountability Bureau and presently matter is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court (Mrs. Shahida Faisal v. Federation of Pakistan C.P.1630/L of 2000) in this background, petitioner challenges the action of official respondent, whereby name of the petitioner has been placed on the Exit Control List.
4. Before admitting the Constitutional petition pre-admission notice was given to respondents and Deputy Attorney-General. Before going to the merits of the case, we propose to take up the preliminary objection raised by the learned Deputy Attorney-General pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to call into question the action of placing name of petitioner on the Exit Control List. It was submitted by the learned Deputy Attorney-General. For Pakistan that the name of petitioner is placed on the Exit Control List on the recommendation of State Bank of Pakistan being loan defaulter of United Bank Limited for Rs.443 million on account of Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Limited. He further submitted that mill situate, facility of finance availed, suit filed, compromise effected, suit decreed and action taken by N.A.B. Within the territorial jurisdiction of Lahore High Court. He also asserted that place of posting of petitioner is also not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and for such reason too this Court does not have jurisdiction. In support of the proposition, reference was made to the case of the Sendalbar Enterprises (Pvt.)
5. Limited v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 1997 SC 334.
6. Opposing the objection, Syed Ayaz Zahoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acts of persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and exercising Authority throughout Pakistan can be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution in any of the High Courts in Pakistan. In any case, as petitioner is a permanent resident of Quetta; therefore, jurisdiction has been rightly invoked. The learned counsel placed reliance on the cases reported in 1985 SCMR 758 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 239.
(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court, may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, .
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--
(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or
(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; or The words "within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court" have obviously been incorporated with the intention of confining the scope of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court. There should be justified basis to approach a particular High Court, otherwise everybody would be free to file a Constitutional petition as per his whim, wish or convenience. The intention of Constitution's maker can also be gathered from the use of words "any act done or proceedings taken". Accordingly; it is held that though functionaries acting on behalf of Federal Government can be sued before any of the High Courts yet petitioner has to show some real basis, which may include that he has been effected by such acts, within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. Additionally, more than one High Court may have concurrent jurisdiction, in the circumstances of a case.
7. After considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It may be noted that respondent No. 1, in its reply has taken a stand that the name of the petitioner is placed on E.C.L. On the recommendation of State Bank of Pakistan being loan defaulter of United Bank Limited for -Rs.443 million, on account of Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Limited, Jhang. Petitioner in his petition also admits the same but contends that he is not a defaulter in view of observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in leave granting order passed in 1630/L of 2000. For the purpose of disposal of preliminary objection raised by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, it Js not relevant to examine whether petitioner is "defaulter" or not but what relevant is that his name has been placed on E.C.L. In connection with said loan. There is no denial of the fact that Factory situate, financed availed, suit filed, compromise effected, decree passed, partial recovery effected and even reference to N.A.B. Made within the territorial jurisdiction of Lahore High Court. The petitioner has also not disputed that he is being sent to London by his employer P.I.A. And his posting is/was at Lahore. Another interesting factor is that when his name was placed on the E.C.L. He filed Writ Petition No.3390 of 2000 in the Honourable Lahore High Court and vide order, dated 8-3-2000 (hereinbefore reproduced) he was allowed to go abroad subject to furnishing security, with directions to return to Pakistan within a period of one month from his exit As mentioned above though petitioner went to London yet unfortunately could not complete the course and it is the case of petitioner himself that he wants to go to London for the same purpose.
8. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner has not filed any document showing any justification for filing instant petition at Quetta. To the contrary averments in the petition discloses that he is challenging the action of respondents whereby his name was initially placed on E:C.L. And the inaction of respondents in not deleting his name from E.C.L., after the leave granting orders of Honourable Supreme Court. It may be relevant to reproduce following portion of the petition:-- "The petitioner was under the impression, that after passing of the order by Honourable Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that the Company is not defaulter and they are duly adhering to the terms and condition of the agreement and depositing the installment, his name would have been deleted, as has been done in the case of one of the other Director. Apart from this, a letter, dated 3-6-2000, was also addressed to the Interior Ministry by the N.A.B. For deleting the name of petitioner from the E.C.L., but despite the fact, the same was riot done so, nor any reasoning in this behalf were given. . Since the action of the respondents, in not deleting the name of petitioner from the E.C.L., is totally without lawful authority and jurisdiction, therefore, having no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy available to petitioner, he begs to prefer this petition, on the following amongst other grounds. "
9. The aforementioned para. Of petition read with grounds pleaded and relief sought, it is clear that, no cause of action accrued to petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It reflects from his own petition that his name was never removed from E.C.L. And that he could board the plane only because of order passed by Honourable Lahore High Court. Since his grievance remains the same, there is no reason to file tire instant petition in this Court, specially when the petitioner has not brought' any material on record to justify his such action, except leave granting order of Honourable Supreme Court; which too strengthen our view because of the point involved.
10. We may now take up the cases cited by the learned counsel. In the first case, cited by learned counsel for petitioner (1985 SCMR 758), in which the facts were that a dispute had arisen between the appellant company, namely Messrs AI-Iblagh Limited, Lahore and respondent No.3. Namely, Syed Haider Farooq Maudoodi about the copyright in respect of a series of cassettes containing the lectures and sermons delivered by late Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi. The owner of appellant company claimed that he not only attended the lectures delivered by late Maulana but to have tape-recorded them at his own initiative and expense. From the said pre-recorded tapes of the sermons, he compiled two books entitled "Kitab-us-- Saum" and "Fazail-e-Qur'an" and got them registered with respondent No.2. After the death of late Maulana and after formation of the above company, he filed applications to the Registrar of Copyright, Karachi, for registration of series of cassettes entitled "Paigham-e-Qur'an Cassettes Series", which had also been prepared by him from the aforesaid pre-recorded tapes of the sermons by Maulana Maudoodi in respect of Tafseer of eleven Surahs of the Holy Qur'an. The above applications were rejected by the Registrar.
11. The appellant company preferred appeals before the Copyright Board. Karachi, which was heard by the three Members of the Board at Lahore at the request of the parties,. But the order was announced at Karachi. The appellant company, therefore, challenged the said order of the Copyright Board in a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because the office of the Registrar or the Copyright Board was located at Karachi and so also the record of the appellant company's case. The matter came up for hearing before Honourable Supreme Court but same was allowed.
12. The above case is distinguishable for the reason that in the above report, company was running its affairs at Lahore, the appeal was heard at Lahore by the Copyright Board and further that Board was for the entire Pakistan and not for Karachi alone. Accordingly it was held that both the Lahore High Court as well as the Sindh High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, in the circumstances of the case. In our view, this authority does not at all advance the case of the petitioner: On the contrary, it would fully apply to uphold the view that the Constitution petition is competent in the High Courts, within whose jurisdiction cause of action arose (may be partly). It may be pointed out that this case came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in case reported in PLD 1997 SC 334.
13. PLD 1997 SC 334), the Honourable Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, laid down the rules as follows:-- "We may- observe that it has become a common practice to file a writ petition either at Peshawar, or Lahore, or Rawalpindi or Multan etc. To challenge the order of assessment passed at Karachi by adding a ground for impugning the notification under which a particular levy is imposed. This practice is to be depreciated. The Court is to see; what is the dominant object of filing of the writ petition. In the present case, the dominant object was not to pay the regulatory duty assessed by a Customs official at Karachi."
14. On the basis of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, we are clear in our mind, that this Court does not have jurisdiction. Lastly, learned counsel for petitioner argued with great vehemence that since he originally belongs to Quetta or permanent resident of Quetta, therefore, the proceedings can be competently filed at Quetta. We have not been impressed, as it cannot be ignored that petitioner intends to go to London for Simulator Course Boeing 737 Air Craft, he is being sent by his employer and his place of posting is/was not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further, it cannot be ignored that at the time of filing of earlier petition, petitioner gave address of Lahore but this time just to create jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has not only provided his alleged address of Quetta but even impleaded Quetta Office of F.I.A., which as per memo. Of petition has not put him on E.C.L. In the peculiar circumstances of the case for the purpose of this petition and grievance made therein, the petitioner is not a resident of Quetta. The petitioner has very heavily relied upon the use of word "resident" in judgment of this Court reported in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 239. Suffice it to say that matter related to terms and condition of petitioner therein, as at the time of passing of order he was posted at Quetta, and order was received at Quetta, therefore, in that context his residence was treated at Quetta. The authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Following the law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1997 SC 334, we may observe that dominant object of filing of this petition is to get removal of the name of petitioner from the E.C.L. Which is connected with grant of loan and its return. Further it is his own case that after grant of leave by the Honourable Supreme Court, it should have been deleted. Besides, he intends to go to London in connection with his employment but neither his posting is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Curt, nor he received any document/order at Quetta. Admittedly, previously he got the order from Lahore High Court with condition to return back within one month, therefore, in the peculiar circumstance of case, this Court does not have jurisdiction. Having found that the petition is not maintainable in this Court, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case.
15. The office is directed to return the original papers to the petitioner enabling him to file his petition before the proper Court, after retaining copies thereof.