1. ' The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to provide the copy of order of President within the period specified or pass any order as may be deemed in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is the informant, as such, a claimant of reward in terms of Reward Rules, dated 25-11- 1984. The facts are that the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Collector, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Rawalpindi disclosing the evasion of Sales Tax. The matter was examined by the Federal Tax Ombudsman and a direction was given to the Department regarding evasion but no reward was recommended to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the appeal before the President in terms of Article 32 of the Tax Ombudsman Order (Annexure "D"). The petitioner was communicated with the result on the representation against the order of the Federal Tax Ombudsman through letter, dated 17-10-2001 of Government of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division No,5/2001 Rep
(FTO) Law. The communication reads as follows:--- ' "Sub: Representation against the decision of the Wafaqi Mohtasib in Complaint No,C-84/K of 2001.
2. ' Madam, ' I am directed to refer to your representation, dated 7-6-2001, on the above subject and to state that the President vide his order, dated 11-10-2001, has been pleased to reject the representation.
3. The complaint as well as the representation made by the complainant do not raise any question of mal-administration.
4. ' Yours faithfully ' (Sd.) Raja Qamar Sultan Section Officer."
5. ' The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition with relief as detailed above. At the very outset, Mr. Nadeem Azhar, the learned Deputy Attorney-General has raised the point of jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Republic of Pakistan and to contend that this Court has no jurisdiction in support of this contention, he has placed his reliance on the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sabiruddin v. Government of Pakistan 1997 SCMR 555 and Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Ghaffar Lakhani v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1986 Kar.
6. 525 that, "under Article 199 of our Constitution, the requirement of clause (a)(i) for issuing a direction is that the person to whom the direction is sought must be performing the function in connection with the affairs of the Federal Province or local authority within the territorial jurisdiction of Court".
7. ' Conversely Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner's contention was that the President is for whole Pakistan but when he was confronted whether President's Secretariat or a branch thereof is within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, his reply was that there might be some establishment of the President House in Sindh. He would not find any establishment of President's House in Sindh. The jurisdiction of this Court to issue direction is confined to the persons who must be performing the function in connection with the affairs of the Federal or Province or local authority within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
8. ' In the present case the cause of action or part thereof has not accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court as the complaint for evasion of sales tax was filed at Rawalpindi. The matter was examined by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in Islamabad. The representation was made at Rawalpindi, consequently this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the petition is dismissed.