CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS’ - Vll

1498

, 2009 C L D 1498 ^ ;
. " ILal^re] . ■ ■ ,i,
. - Before Mian. Saqib Nisar, J
' - LPG ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through ,
Chairman*—'Petitioner
versus **
v FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary.
Ministiy of Petroleum and Natural Resources,
Islamabad aitd 8 others t--Respond ents
1 ,
C.M. No.2202 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.9518, decided on
July, 2009. '

—A rt 199(l)(a)(i)(W-'-CoriStitutional petition—Temtorial Juns'

diction/concurrent Jurisdiction of High Court -Principles-
Respondents sought return of ihe constitutional petition ort
ground th at under Artl99(l)(c0 of the ConsUtutionr Lahore rW
Court did not have the Jurisdiction^ to entertain the petition,
primarily fo r the reason tlKit cil .toe respondents fexrcept a
fornm respondent functioned at Islamabad; impugned no^ ^ rriafz
also been issued there, and thet^ore,, it w as the Islam abad Htg
Court which alone had the terntoiigl Jurisdiction tn the
Law and principles on the point Of terrUoricd _
concurrent Jurisdiction of , High Court recapitulated
illustrations-
* 1 X1
The following Is the law and principles oh the P0^ t 0
territorial JurisdiGtion/concurrent Jurisdiction of High Court:'-'
(a) The Federal Government or any body politic or a
cu>
20091 LPG A ssociatian of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan U 9 9
(Mian Saqib Nisart J)
corporation or a statutory authority having exclusive residence
or location at-Islamabad with no office at any other place in any
of the Provinces, shall still be deemed to function all over the
country.
(b) If such Government, body or authority passes any order
or Initiates an action at'Islamabad, but it affects the “aggrieved
narty” a t the place other than the Federal Capital, such party
shall have a cause of action to agitate about his grievance
within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in which
said order/action has affectedhlm.
fcl t h is shall be more so in cases where a party is ^ g r le v ^
or a legislative Instrument (including any rules, etc.) cm ®
0r X.H nf its being ultra vires, because the cause to sue against

SSSSfVSSW
affected.
rt8ht wb'
In this context. lllustetioM ca^b e of ^
d u ty /tax h as been- in)P"®®d rs from their bank account and
am ounts by the a c c o s t ^ account at Lahore,
the aggrieved party is ™ ^ ^ dgat Islamabad, yet his right
t h o u g h the Act/law has been p he acc0Unt (Lahore), he also
beingW eeted where he m a i h i ^ t & tion ^ Vah0Te besides
can competently lrj[ti^te up tnie for the violation of any ngh
Islamabad: this s b ^ la ls o b e dtm efor & person at u ^ o re
to profession, if bemg conducte^^i hy ve & right tQ seek the
obviously in ln ’any of the two High Courts.
enforcement of his rig Islamabad and
fd) On account of a^ ^ S u r r e n t jurisdiction in
Lahore High Courts shall bav legally sound to hold that as

“ ■«h i M
rule of choice, the P f lence. IP- 15141A
choose the forum of hi ^ cBR pUD 1997 SC 334.
. Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) •

CID
1500 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS EVoL VII

Messrs Al-Iblagh Limited Lahore v. The Copyright Board

Karachi and others 1985 SCMR 758; Mst. S ahida Maqsood v.
President of Pakistan and another 2005 SCMR 1746: Dr!
Zahoor Ahmed Shah v. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council
through Seeretaiy and another 2005 MLD 718; Dr. Qaiser
Rashid V. Federal Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad PLD 2006 Lah. 789; Messrs
Ibrahim Fibres Ltd. through Secretary/D irector Finance v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/Revenue Division and
3 others PLD 2009 Kar. 154; At>dul Ghaffar Lakhanl v. Federal
Government of Pakistan and 2 qthers PLD 1986 Kar. 525; Amin
Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1998
SCMR 2389; Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd; Charsada v.
Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 1997 SCMR
1874; Sh. Abdul Sattar Lasi v. Federation of Pakistan through
Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliam entary Affairs,
Islamabad and 6 others 2006 CLD 18; M uhammad Idrees v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary,* Establishm ent
Division, Islamabad and 5 others 1998 PLC (C.S) 239; Messrs
Lucky Cement Ltd. v. The Central Board of Revenue and others
PLD 2001 Pesh. 7; Muhammad Aslam Khan and 9 others v.
Federal Land Commission tlirough its Chairm an, Central
Secretariat Islamabad and ,3 others PLD 1976 Pesh. 66 and
Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private). Ltd. v. Pakistan Agro
Forestry Corporation (Private) Ltd. and another 2000 SCMR
1703 ref.
(b) ShouKXiuse—
----Shoto-cause noUce—’Show-cause' an d ‘show.-cause notice*
con be consthied synonymous to "show-cause order". Ip. 1515} B
B lacks Law Dictionary E l ^ t h Edition ref.
(c) C om petition O rdinance (U I o f 20071—
—-S.30—qonstituttono/Pakistc^ (19731 A rtl9 9 —Consti1ntloncd
petition Territorial Jurisdictioji/toncurrent Jurtsdiciioh of
Court—Scope—Petitioner Association had its H ead Office iat
Lahore, most of its members were in Punjab, impu^hed notice
w as addressed to and received by the-.petitioner in L ahore-
Respondents/authorities functidtted a t Islam abad—Show-cc
notice issued by respondent/authority under S.30 of the
Competition Ordinance, 2007 was of peculiar nature and
serious lyqffect the person to mhom it mas issued an d fin al order
b ^ e d thereiq)pri could Jiave f a r reaching adverse effects,
Owrefore 0 ^ place u was sen t c o m m u t e d , served and
, relevance fo r the purposes o f the concurrent
Jurisdiction-Held, both the Islamabad High d u r t an d Lahore
"CLD
2 0 0 9 ] LPG AssociaHon of Pakistan v. Federation o j Pakistan 1501
(Mian Sdqib Nisar, J)
ftigh Court had the concurrent jurisdiction in the matter,
therefore, constilulional petUton at Lahore had been competently
filed, {p- 1517] CSl E
W ords a n d p h ra se s—
^---fiffeci—Meostings: ip. 1517] D
Black’s Law Dictionary, Deluxe Sixth Edition ref.
Aitzaz Ahsan, Uzair Karamat Bhandarl and Shahid
^ e e d for PeUtloher.
Muhammad Ahmad Qayyum and Asjad Saeed for
Respondents Nos.3 and 5 to 8.
B asharat Qadir for Respondent No.4.
Dr. Parvez Hassan for Respondent No,a
ORDER
r. M Nn.22Q2 0F2QQ9
MIAN SAQIB NISARi ^

. i -LPG A n having >“ b“ ‘ ^ ^ 6 If

considerable m em bership , * address given in th e
h ead office is situ ated a t side),
p ao u o n . tlh la poaMon Is >hat the
The grievance propoundeh . * 0rdm ancc) is no longer aji
Com petition O rdinance, 200 ^ sg of Constitution of
existing law a s on accoiin ^ constitution), it sta n d s
Islam ic Republic of PaWstan, l 9r^'^\jltfaUon l e. 2-10-2007: th e
repealed fo u r m o n th after its (a) 41 and 42 thereof,
provisions of th e O rdinance especial^ 3 and of no leg^
are u ltra vires of th e Cons „ ■ (jec|are the inquiry report
effect and th u s be, so declared. shoW cause as also void
an d b a s e d th e re u p o n the jt has been prayed th a t the
an d of no legal effect an d J n ^ s| ^ tiaand its offlcers may be
Com petition Com m ission oft P alnst lPGAP or any of its
restrain ed from taking alJ7 . jp, report or th e impugned
' m em bers on th e b asts of the m qu j ■
n0tlCe' aTtje up for hearing on
. 2. The noted writ (t0 a regular hearing M d a
18-5-2009. when It was admi gnmt, of interim reUef ff •
' notice on C.M .No;l-C of 2 ° 09 tlon6 0f the impugned show
seeking su sp en sio n ^ 5-2009. Messrs H i. Saeed-uz-
cau se notice) w as issued. On ^5/

CLD
1502 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS ■VII

Zafar and Muhammad Ahmad Qayyum. Advocates for the

appllcants/respondents Nos.3, 5 to 8, moved an application
(CM No 2202 of 2009) under Order Vll, rule 10, C.P.G. asking
for the return of the writ petition on the ground th a t under
Article 199 (l)(a) of the ConsUtution, Lahore High Court does not
have the Jurisdiction to entertain it, primarily for the reason
that all the respondents (except respondent No.9, a pro forma
respondent) function a t Islainabad, the impugned notice has
also been Issued there, and therefore, it is the Islamabad High
Court, which alone has the territorial jurisdiction in the matter;
notice was Issued on this application to the w rit petitioner
(though on account of some typographical omission, it is not so
recorded in the order sheet, b u t if was announced in the Court
and also accordingly understood by the counsel for the parties)
and as the vires of the law were under challenge and
substantial questions to the interpretation of constitutional law
were involved, th u s a notice was also issued to the Attorney
General of Pakistan in term s of Order XXVII-A. C.P.C. On the
application i.e. C.M. No.2 of 2Q09 of the petitioner, an interim
order was passed (on 27-5-2009). “In th e meanwhile, the
operation of the impugned notice is suspended”-T his order has
been challenged by respondent No.3. before the Honourable
Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPSLA No. 1022 of 2009, which
on account of an agreement between the parties has been
disposed of vide order dated 25-6-2009, on the basis of which;
this Court is required to first decide the question of it®
Jurisdiction and if It is assum ed, then to pass a speakihg order
on the application C. M. No.2 of 2009 moved by the petitioner.
Pursuant to the above, the application C. M. No-2202 of 2009
has been heard. , ( .
3. Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Qayyum, learned counsel for
the appllcants/respondents Nos.3, 5 and 8. h as argued th a t the
show-cause notice, which has been primarily challenged in the
petition, was issued to LPGAP by respondent No.3 a t Islamabad
where it exclusively resides and functions. It h as no office in
any Province of the country, no action affecting the rights of the
writ petitioner an d /o r its members h as been taken in Punjab,
therefore, the matter falls outside the Jurisdiction of the Lahore
High Court and consequently vests in exclusive domain of
Islamabad High Court. In this behalf, reference h as been made
to Article 199 (aKi) and (11) of the Constitution. It is stated that
for th e purpose of Jurisdiction, dominant purpose and object oi
the case is required to be looked into and In this petition, such
purpose undoubtedly Is to assail the show-cause notice,
whereas th e challenge to the vires of the law is only ancillary
cu>
 2009) LPG Associalion of Pakistan v. FederatUm of Pakistan 1503
(Miofi&jqibNisarwJ)
thereto. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has
cited the cases, reported as Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) v. CBR
PLD 1997 SG 334 (Paras., Nos.5. 6 and 8). Mst. Shahlda
Maqsood v. President of Pakistan and another 2005 SCMR 1746
(para. No.5). Or. Zahoor Ahmed Shall v. Pakistan Medical and
Dental Council through Secrctaiy and another 2005 MLD 718
(para. No.lO), Dr, Qaiser Rashid v. Federal Secretary, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Government of Pakistan. Islamabad PLD
2006 Lah. 789. and Messrs Al-Iblagh Limited Lahore v. The
Copyright Board Karachi 1985; SCMR.758.
Mr. B asharat Qadir, Advocate appearing for respondent
No.4 h as substantially advanced the same arguments and has
also placed reliance upon the judgment reported as Messrs
Ibrahim Fibres Ltd. through Secretary/Director Finance v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretaiy. Revenue Division and
3 others PLD 2009 Kar. 154 (para. Nos.25. 27 and 28) a t pages
162, 167 and 168 to submit that on account of Article 199 of
the Constitution, the writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari
and prohibition can be issued by such Court within the
territorial jurisdiction, of which the respondents of the case
function and the impugned order/acUon has_ been
passed/taken; reference in this behalf has been made to th
case reported as Abdul Ghaffar Lakhanl v. Federal Government
of Pakistan and 2 others PhD 1986 Kar. 525 (para No,20) @
538. , . ,
Mr. Asjad Saeed learned counsel for the a^U cante/
• respondents Nos.3, 5 and 8 has referred t0
of m is Court which was passed in a
case/Diary No.37388 of 2009) and ar| fu|5 )* ^ s1 ^
held therein th at even if the dnal °j;de]rt °l® 0vf t;^r usP pertmns
Lahore, h u t because the P” P ^ b°alls within the territorial
and forum below in the nierarc y Tjflhore High Court,
jurtsdlction of the respective Benches of tl^eigprinclpal
therefore,
seat. He h asu ch wrlt1 P,!Uti0nnn C
I e case reported
s also relied upon the case P as Amin
1998 Textile
SCMR
Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Islamic RepubUc «fi^jan5;;^ttaJ urpose whlch
2389 a n d h a s reiterated the ru f0]i0Wed in deciding th e
should b e th e criteria and must be foHowed m
question about the jurisdiction ^ writ petitioner
4. Mr, Altzaz Ahs^5^ ; Al-Iblagh’s cases
has also relied upon the 3an of both these
(supra) and has argued tha a p .g(ilctlon one. where the
dictums, two Courts shall have m j impUgned order has
respondent {of the case^J^nCL ire it (the assailed action/order)
been passed and the other wn
CLO .
 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS rVol. Vll
1504

take its effect. As in the Instant case, the petitioner has its head
ofHce a t Lahore, most of its members ace in Punjab, the
imouened notice was addressed to and received by the
netitloner at Lahore, therefore, It shall affect th e petitioner (and
its member) within the territorial JurlsdlGtion of this Court. In
this regard he has read quite a few paragraphs o f the two noted
ludgments,' on the strength of which, it Is contended th a t both
the Islamabad High Court as also the Lahore High Court shall
have the concurrent Jurisdiction In the m atter and It is setUed
law th a t where such Jurisdiction (concurrent) is vested with the
two Courts, the petitioner has the right to choose the forum. As
regards the rule of dominant purpose, it is argued th a t such
purpose means not to escape and avoid the jurisdiction of any
Court (i e I H.C), rather on account of concurrent Jurisdiction,
the petitioner is exercising Its right, of choice. Learned counsel
in support of his contenUon, besides the above Judgm ents of the
Honourable Supreme Court, h as relied upon th e judgments
reported as Sh. Abdul S attar Last v. Federation of Pakistan
through Secretary. Ministry of Law Ju stice and Parliam enta^
Affairs, Islamabad and 6 others 2006 CLD 18 Para. No. 8.
Muhammad Idrees v. Government of Pakistan tr o u g h
Secretary, Establishm ent Division. Islam abad and 5 others
1998 PLC (C.S.) 239 @ 242, 243. 247. Messrs Cement
Ltd. V. The Central Board of Revenue and others FLU -iuui
Peshawar 7 @1 4 , Muhammad Aslarh Khan an d 9 o ile rs v.
Federal Land Gommlssion -through its Chairm an. Cen™
Secretariat Islamabad and 3 others PLD 1976 Peshawm 66
Para.v 15. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.3 Limited
Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Pvt.) Limited and -
2000 SCMR 1703 Paras. Nos.B and 10, Fl3ring Kraift Paper M
(Pvt) Ltd. Charsadda v Central Board of Revenue, Islamaba
and 2 others 1997 SCMR 1874 ® 1884 para. 4, Messrs
Iblagh Limited, Lahore v. The Copyright Board,
others 1985 SCMR 758 and A sglw H ussain, v. The Elecu
Commission of Pakistan and others PLD 1968 SC 387.
Mr. Uzair Karamat Bhandari co-eounsel fo r the writ
petitioner, for elucidating the dom inant purpose has ma
reference to p ^ a s Nos.4 and 6,of Amin Textile's case supra.
Heard. The ratio of Sahdalbar Enterprises^ case
Is in paragraph .No.8 thereof, which reads below.
"We may observe that It has become a common practice
to file a writ petition either a t Peshawar, or Lahore,
Rawalpindi or Multan etc, to challenge the order
assessm ent passed a t Karachi by adding a gr

CLD
2009] L P ^ A ssociation o j Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan 1505
(Mion Saqib Nlsar. J)
impugning the Notification under which a particular levy
is imposed. This practice Is to be depreciated. The Court
■Is to seePwhat Is the dominate object of filing of the writ
petition. In the present case, the dominant object was
n o t to pay the regulatory duty assessed by a Customs
official a t Karachi."
Their lordships in this judgment though have
distinguished Messrs Al-Iblagh Ltd’s, case (supra) on its own
facts b u t have not feylslted the powerful reasoning of the said
Judgment which reads as below;-
*The rules laid down fri tlie said case would, we think,
be applicable also Iri the circumstances of this case. The
Central Government has set up a Copyright Board for
the whole of Pakistan and it performs functions in
relation to the affairs of the Federation in all the
Provinces. Hence, any order passed by it or pr^eedm gs
taken by it in relation to any person in any of the four
Provinces of Pakistan would give the High Court of me
Province in whose territory the order would affect such a
V person, jurisdiction to hear the case."
In paragraph No.5 of the judgment 2005 SCMR 1746. it
has been observed:— ■ '
. “Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently ^ e d
th a t case of the petitioner would Tail under ss^cie

. ■
^ 3 s ,aS. ^ " s

Article 199 of the Constitution.

■: Thus considering * ed d o ^ otHftnd0Ua^^ flaw L the
judgm ent^of "court, which is not open to any

exception'. h .n held that the Court was to

In 2 0 0 5 MLD 718, It has be n h^^ of the constitulional
.see w hat was the dominant o j .nant object is registratiori
petition and In the instant ca , ^ Medical arid D ept^
of the petitioner’s q u a i f f i c a m n ^ m located at lslamabad.
Council; th e office of tl>e Counci

CLD
1506 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS

therefore. In the circumstances, the Jurisdiction was held not

possessed by the Quetta High Court where It was filed. More or
less, sam e Is the ratio of the judgm ent reported a s PLD 2006
Lah. 789. -
In PLD,2009 Kar. 154, it h a s been observed:-
“From a perusal of the actions and omission of the
members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lahore
Bench we have seen th at such acts and omissions took
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the 'Lahore
High Court and therefore the cause of action fully arose
a t Lahore/
it Is on account of the above, the Karachi High Court
was obliged to hold:—
“the Income Tax Tribunal Lahore. Bench does not
function within the territories subject to the Jurisdiction
. of this Court and even the petitioner and th e person and
the rnembers of the Income Tax Tribunal Lahore or the
Taxation Officer based a t Lahore do not function within
the territorial jurisdiction of this C ourt and are not
amenable to the jurisdiction of this Courts We are,
therefore, of th e considered opinion th a t this C ourt does
not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of m andam us In
this constitutional petition/
In paragraph Np.20 of the judgm ent PLD 1986 Kar. 525.
it has been'held:— . .
“Even in respect of the cases covered by Article
199(l)(a){i) direction-could be issued only to a person
who performs the functions within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court in connection w ith the affairs of
the Federal. Provincial or local authorities for the
purposes mentioned therein. Similarly under Article
199(l)(a)(li) a declaration could be m ade in respect of
any act or proceedings taken only, if the act w as done or
th e proceedings ta k e n w ithin th e territo rial Jurisdiction
of the Court. In other words for ©ranting a w rit in the
nature of Mandamus or prohibition, the person whose
acts of commission or omission are challenged m ust
have performed or omitted to perform the acts,
complained of within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court. Likewise a Writ in the nature of certiorari
could be issued only in respect- of orders passed of
proceedings taken within the territorial Jurisdiction of
th e High Court and not otherwise, n*
CID
2 0 0 9 1 A ssociation o f Pakistan a Federanon of Pakistan 1507
(Mian Scu^ib Nlsar. J)
In 1998 SCMR 2389. Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd’s case
(supra), it was h eld :-
“The m atter essentially relates to the demand of the
B ank in respect of a loan and other facilities taken by
the petitioner a t Karachi from the Bank and, as
observed, the dues of the Bank are payable at Karachi
and even, according to the petitioner, the agreement
dated 6-6-1994 with the Bank was executed at Karachi
and payments are being made in Instalments to the
Bank. In filing the writ petition the dominant object was
to avoid the demand of the Bank and, in the facts and
circum stances Lahore High Court had no territorial
Jurisdiction In the Tnatter.,,
In the Judgment cited by Mr, Altzaz Ahsan, learned
counsel for th e petitioner, Messrs Al-Iblagh Limited 1985 SCMR
758 a t page 762 provtdes:-
“Whlle dealing with a somewhat similar s i t u a t i^ .^ I s
. C ourt was called upon to examine the terms of ^ cl®
• 98 of the 1962 Constitution (which are s im to to
Commissioner, Pakistan and other's case PLD 1 9 6 8 ^
387. In this case the East Pakistan High Court had^rfd
th a t the said High Court could not exercise Jurlsdictio
■ S S S g id t o ^ of the Election C o ^ ^ n
of P a W s t^ as t o b province q{ the East
performed its luncuon + Hleh Court was
. Pakistan and. therefore,^ from
precluded on account o .. or4jers passed
exercising j urisdictio^J^ftC° ^ g ntion lt was observed by
by It. While rejecting this contention n was
this Court that:-- . _ . ^
Thc yvtoin meanlna_ o L fc g -g Q ^ ^ '~ ^ J ^ ° ^affairs
such as.
of the Centre’ Court ls
th a t th e person or aut^ ^ ^ ust be amenable to Its
, empowered to issue r location within those
jurisdiction either by residence
territories.'*
(u n d erlin g is ours)

It explained that:- y Departments of

"The Central Mlnistries as w ed in Islamabad ^ at
. the Central Government as i functions in both
• Rawalpindi. Nevertheless they P“ ‘
CLD
 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS • VII
1508

Provinces in connection w ith the affairs of the

S n t J I such as, Defence of Pakistan, External Affairs, .

oiirs) . ' ■
oort found th a t the orders made or proceedings taken by
S o S i t m e n t s in connection the alM rs of
the Central Government b u t having effect on p a rte s in
East P a S S a n would be Subject to the w rit jurisdiction.
of the High Court of th a t Province.
The rules laid down m the said case woxild we thlnk; bc
applicable also in the circum stances of this case The
C e £ Government h as set up a Copyright Board for
t h ^ whole of Pakistan and it performs funcUons In
relation to the affairs of the Federation in all the
Provinces. Hence, any order passed, by lt or P<:;°c^edl; ; g
hY it ir,'relation to «nv person in any of t^ e fo^
nf Pakistan would give the High C ourt of th£ ■
whose territory the order wou d
^ p e rs o n . lurisHiction to hear th e c a ^ . (for emphasis
underline is rnitie) ‘ .
The learned Deputy Attorney General Mr. M unh A.
Sheikh who appeared on behalf of th e respon
Copyright Board, supported this -m te ^ re ahorn of
constitutional provision in question an d subm itted tha
the writ petition Hied by the a p p e ll^ t before ^ o rc
High Court should not have been dism issed for lacK oi
Jurisdiction by the said High Court as xt had
jurisdiction to entertain it. concurrently with the
Court.
We agree and are of die opinion th a t both ^
High Court as well as the Sindh High Court
concurrent jurisdiction in the m atter and . ..
Courts could have entertained a w rit petition again
impugned orders in the circum stances of this 9a®e‘ j , "
therefore, hold th at die Lahore High C ourt h a ^ i case
refused to exercise Jurisdiction in th is case. J 116 . for
will, therefore, go back to the Lahore Hi^ 1Co.l^ f ore
decision of the writ petition filed by the appellant
it for decision on merits, in accordance w ith law.
In 1997 SCMR 1874 a t 1884. It h as been h e ld :-
case
' “Mr. Pirzada further contended th a t In the
not only the order of Collector of C ustom s and

CLD
2009] IP O A ssociation o f Paklstan v. Federation of Pakistan 1509
(Mkvn Saqib Nisar, J)
Excise was in question but rellef ls also claimed against
the Central Boatrd of Revenue, which functions at
Islamabad, and therefore^ the High Court at Peshawar
and Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court had
concurrent jurisdiction In the matter. The contention of
■ Mr. Pirzada, the learned counsel for the appellants is not
'w ithout force.”
In 2006 CLD 18, after taking Into account considerable
case-law on the subject, the Division Bencli of the Quetta High
Court h as held;--
“8. So far as the territorial jurisdiction of this Court Jn
th e m atter is concerned, it may be observed that under
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic R epublic ot
• Pakistan, 1973 writ coyld be issued against any ^ rs o n
who is performing -In the Province any . function
irrespective of its nature relating to the affairs of the

' . , a n c iU a rL J o ^ tM -^ in the
underline Is mine): tto ^ d onl on the ground that
m atter which d nurchased happen to be
the properties risdlction of this Court or that the
situated outside the .;;“ C3 side the jurisdicUon of
respondents were p jug j^sdlction Qonferred on
this Court beca|iS®pthi 99 of the Constitution is not
■ ; Court under Article aggrieved person but It
contingent upon residen f etionary 0f Stete
r S S r f s th at a ' person/authorify/ ed sht)uld

m S o r l . the Pro ' " s °f ®e^ ^ J 1ead tn Article 1 9 ^ as

p.539. The relevant observ .

P-
below :- deduclble, from the foregoing <hscu
The
CLD
 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS
1510

th a t the lurisdlctlon of this Court u n d er Article 199 0f

in s titu tio n of Pakistan (1973) Is n o t contingent .
upon the residence of aggrieved person. Equally It ls not
r d S b t e to places where the writ issued by it vrtll have
S 2 t W hat is required by this ^ c l e is th a t the
w reon / authority /functionary of S tate against whom
is sought to be issued shall be operating or be
S e S b l e to the jurisdiction of this Court. In other
S s ft m e L s t h i the writ issued by th e C ourt cannot
beyond the territory subject to Ite jurisdiction ^ d
^ c o S th a t the person an authority to whom the
Pourt was to issue writ was am endable to its
jurisdiction either by residence or p 1^ '
territory. The elements embodied iii section 20 ofC.P.C.
S n n o t be introduced to Article 199 of the Constitution.
Anplytog this principle to facts and clrcum stoices of the
caser S h a n d ft is quite clear to u s th a t th e impugned
order was passed by .C hairm an Federal Land
S n m is s io n a t Rawalpindi; th a t th e Federal Land
Commission w as/is a fed eral Institution jmd operates
within the territories Of whole of P ^ s t a n . th a t
functioned at relevant time at Rawalpindi and ft was so
clearly amenable to jurisdiction of the High ^ r t ^f
Lahore. We( on this view, have no reason to depart trom
the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court vi.^
'.order dated 29-3-1976. In result, the
objection raised by the learned Deputy Attorney G ener^
is found to be misconceived and is accordingly repellea.
9. In th e Judgment reported in 1995 CLC
this Court held th at the provisions as contem plat^
under Article 199 of the Constitution are read togemer
as such; th e words “without lawful authority used
clause (iHaKil) of Article 199 o f the Constitution ^
suggestive of the fact th at Article 199 Is applicable to ^
persons. Authorities, Tribunals. Corporations apa
Autonomous and sertii-Autonomous bodies subJe.c ,. _
Constitution and, thus;' constitutional jurisdicti
carmot be limited within the boundaries of a Province.
10. In the Judgment report a s PLD 1988 SC 387, toe
Honourable apex Court held th a t the Elec
Gommisslon Is a person or authority which exercis
juiisdlction in the Province of..,East Pakistan
connection with the aflairs of the Centre y
elections to the office of the President, Natlo
. Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies and for holding
cxo
2 0 0 9 ] LPO A ssociation o f Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan 1511
(Mian Saqib NisarwJ)
a Referendum as provided for in the Constitution, as
such; Commission is slibject to the JurisdicUon of the
High Court notwithstanding that its main office and
Secretariat are located In the Province of West Pakistan
because the plain meaning of the words "a person
performing in the Province functions in connection with
the affairs of the Centre’* exclude territorial limitation.
- such as th a t the person or authority to whom the High
Court Is empowered to issue writ must be amenable to
its Jurisdiction either fay residence or location within
those territories.
11. Whereas: in the judgment reported in PLD 1987 SC
page 334 the Honourable apex Court held that while
determining the constitutional jurisdiction, the High
Court h as . to see the dominant object of filing of the
constitutional petition.
12 In view of the dictum laid down to the ab<we
authorities and considering that the dominant object fOT
mine of the instant petition is to challenge toe validity
! S gvires of section 15 of toe Ordinance, 2001. we are
mrdlned to hold that tots Court has toe jurisdiction to
the matter.*
t
In 1998 OTr' fo
PLC m 239
(C.S.) 239. the
me petitioner
p of the
m case was
rdatlon an
t0 ws
employee of the Covernm ^ Qovemmentat Islamabad, which
service an order where he was posted, he filed a
was conveyed to him 111
' constitutional petition with a prayer.
"It is prayed th at this to “nature of
be pleased to app^ prirespondentg t0 reconsider
S ° S decide petitioner's representation o
; antedation of MS promotion. ea fey ^ leamed
A preliminary obje.Ctl° ^ ^ toe lack of terrltori^
Deputy Attorney Ge” ®r^ , nT1 Bench of the Gourt. to toe
jurisdiction and the ed Judge, (now the Honou^ble
Judgment authored by th ^ *as far as Federa

underline is by the learned P

objection raised m tnifi*
CLD
 CORPORATC LAW DECISIONS

uenerai h as no siibstanqe which is accordingly overruled

concluding thereby th at this Court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the Constitutional petlUofi against the functionaries of
the Federal Government because cause of action accrued to
petitioner against the adverse orders determined to his service
interest passed by a competent Authority during his posting at
Quetta."
In PLD 2001 Peshawar 7 a t page 14, on an order passed
by the BOR, Collectorate of Customs Initiated action against the
TCtitioner {Lucky Cement Ud?j in the: R nvinee .of N.-W.F.P.
where It had established its plants. Lucky Cem ent filed petition
challenging such action before fee Peshawar High Court, which
was resisted on the ground of- territorial jurisdiction.
Considering the case-law on the subject, the Division Bench of
the Peshawar High Court;* contffided:--
“Any order passed by such Board or proceedings taken
by it In' relation to' any person in any of the. four
Provinces of the Country would give High C ourt of the i,
Province in whose territory order would affect such a
' person jurisdiction to hear the case. It was thus
declared th a t Sindh High Court and High Court in
whose territory order affects a person would, therefore,
have conciirrent jurisdiction."
: In PLD 1976 Peshawar 66 (in para 15), It w as h e ld :-
f . “On a careful reading of the above quotation it would
' appear th a t tMs Court h as got fee .powers to m ake an
order directing a person performing w ithin its territorial
jurisdiction functions in connection w ith the affairs ol
the Federation, or .of a province, or a local authority to
.refrain from doing anything he Is n o t perm itted by law to
. do. The crucial points for the exercise of the jurisdiction,
therefore, are th at the person should b e perform li^
'■far«:tions-wi1h^n;fee-territoriadl--'J^ df'-thas CoU’
■' a n d ag ain h e is doing th a t w hich h e is n o t p erm itted by
law to do. It is tru e th a t th e F ederal L an d C om m ission is
located a t Islam abad, b u t a m e re referen ce to, Its or^^r
d a te d 28-1-1975 a s in A n nexure A a n d th e
' ' ad v ertisem en t a s in copy A niiexure AD-B w ould Show
th a t i t w an ts to perform som e fu n ctio n s m th e a r e a ^
U pper T anaw al w hich Is w ith in th*^ t^ rrito rip
: Jurisdiction ‘of tills C o u rt (for em p h asis u n d e rlin e s
mine)t The fact th a t th is function is b ein g perform ed n
connection with the affairs of the Federation or
Province Is lfnmaterialf' for in either case it
cu>
20091 LPG Association of Pakistan v. Federamn oj Pakistan 1513
(Mian Saqfb Nisar, J}
amenable to the Jurisdiction of this Court. In this view
we are reinforced by the weighty pronouncement of their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in Asghar Hussain v.
The Election Commission. Pakistan and 2 others PLD
1968 SG 387 and a recent authority of this Court in
Khaista Gul. v. Akbar Khan and 7 others PLD 1975
Peshawar 146"
In 2000 SCMR 1703, it is held:-
“The learned Single Judge of the High Court in
Chambers has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the
m atter In the Judgment in writ petition and has held
th a t the respondent No. l having cause of action against
? ed e S r Government could bring the Cof m utlon^
. L u u o n either at Karachi or at Rawalpindi Bench of
' ? , hore High Court. The learned Single Judge rejected
the objectfon of maintainability of the writ peUOon on

Pakistan are th e V f
Com m erce a t Islam abad Before th e b u t was ^s0
was n o t only claimed ag ri t ^ 0 2 the Ministry of
claim ed a«ai^®^e^ ^ e n t Pof Pakistan 'at Islam abad as

11, Similar a w “ l ^ K raft°»per MBs

before this Court in nhiection' was raised by the
(Pvt.) Umited (supra). . ^ t y^e Rawalpindi
Seam ed Deputy Att0IT "y:Je;jfd n f jurisdiction in the
Bench, Lahore High Court h ^ ^ petition was not
case a s the order t n p u g n ^ ^ s an j ' Central Exc se
passed by the CoUertor^of Gust ^ contended that relef
functioning at Peshaw^c ^ t Board of ReVenue wWch
was claimed against * e C e n the Hlgh court ^
■ fu n ctio n s a t ^slam a^ a^ ‘ 0f Lahore High Court
. P esh aw ar an d m the m atter. C o n te n d ^
had concurrent jurisdicU held that both Courts
was found convinci g yjg matter.
had concurrent.Jurlsdlctlon i n . ^ the

remedy can BaWaipindi Be * we find no

.
reason' to interic
H1^ C0Urt-
cu>
 CORPORATE IjAW DECISIONS tVol. Vll
1514

C onsequently leave to ap p e a l Is re fu se d a n d th e petition

Is d ism issed .”
6 From the judgm ents cited a t the B ar on both the sides,
the portions whereof have been extensively reproduced, the
following ratio is deduclble:—
(A) The Federal Government or any body politic or a
corporation or a statutory authority having exclusive
residence or location at Islamabad with no office a t any
other place i a any of the Provinces, shall still be deemed
to function all over the country.

(B) If su c h Government, body or authority passes any order

or initiates an action a t Islamabad, b u t it affects the
“aggrieved party" at tlie place other th a n tile Federal
camtal. such party shall have a cause of action to
agitate about his grievance within the territonal
jurisdiction of the High Court in which said drder/action
h as affected him.
(C) This shall be moreso in the cases w here a party is
aggrieved -or a legislative instrum ent (including any
rules, etc.) on the grouiid of it being u ltra vires, because
die cause to sue against th a t law shall accrue to a
person a t the place where his rights have been
Fox example, if a law is challenged on the ground th a t it
is confiscatoiy in nature, violative of th e fu n d a m e n ^
rights to property; profession., association etc._ and any
: curb h a s been placed upon such a right by a
enforced at Islamabad, besides there, it can also De
challenged within the Jurisdiction of the High Court,
where th e right is likely to be affected;
Iii this context. iUustrations can be given, th a t if some
d u ty /ta x h as been imposed upon the withdrawal oi tn
am ounts by the account holders from their 10
account and the aggrieved, party Is m aintaining m
account a t Lahore, though the Act/law h a s been passe
a t Islamabad^ yet his right being affected whe^e
m aintains the account (Lahore). he also can competen y
initiate a writ petition in Lahore besides Islamabad; ®
shall also be true for the violation of any right
profession, if being conducted by a person a t L ^ h o ^
obviously in the situation, he shall have a right to se ^
the enforcement of his right in any of the two H g
Courts. '

cu>
200911-PCr AssociatUm of Pakistan a Federation, of Pakistan 1515
(Mian Saqib Ntsar, J)

(D) On account of the above, both the Islamabad and

Lahore High Courts shall have the concurrent
Jurisdiction In certain rriatters and it shall not be legally
sound pr valid to hold that as the Federal Government
etc. resides in Islamabad, and operates from there; the
assailed order/acUon has ^so emanated from
Islamabad, therefore. It Is only the Capital High Court
which shall possess the jurisdiction. The dominant
purpose In such a situation shall be irrelevant, rather on
account of the rule of choice, the plain tiff/petitioner
shall have the right to choose the forum of his

7 In order to evaluate, If the present case qualifies the test

of concurrent jurisdiction. It Is expedient to examine _ me
contents of th e show-cause notice, which has admittedly
issued by respondent No.3 under the provision of secUon 30 of
Sfe Competition Ordinance, 2007 from Islamabad In th e n o ^ e
S te r T a r in g made reference; to certain in q u ^ and other
fectums, in paragraph No. 15 it has been menUoned:-
“Whereas in view of the foregoing the commission is

(g) of th e O rdinance and section 3 (11 reaa_witn

§ 2 ) and 3(3)(d)(e) and (g) of the Ordinance.

■ n ,.. a , . X S S T th ?
writing within fourteen day y P (LGPAG)' contentions. It
the facts and material In support of to >Bn appropriate
IS further nxentloned m the potice^a^to^^ yect.on 32 of the
order under clause (cl of seci^ ° , , a 4 n alty for the above-
Ordinance may not be.
mentioned violations should not be to p o sS under section 38 of
imp

the ordinance. . how-cause notice? (which can

W hat is a show-cause, s order) and whether it
be construed synonymous^to s^n ^ n whom tt ls serVed? Are
causes any effect to the p P be attended in the case,
important proposWon. which needs and sixth Editions
According to Black’s Law Dictionary Aig. B
respectively, it means:—
S h q w c au se ;-- < <lvTllan aUon or excuse, u su .
T o produce a s ^ i ^ a c t o r ^ ^ n or appiieation to a
in connection with a mo
 CORPORATE d e c is io n s

Show cau^e O rder:-

-Court order, deeree, cxecuUon. etc. to appear m
directed and' present to the Court such reasons and
considerations as one h as to^ offer why^ a particular
order, decree, etc, should not he confirmed, take effect,
b e executed, or as the case may be. E
Any order to a person or corporation, on motion of
™ s i n g party, to appear in Court and cxpla n why the
Court s L u ld not take a proposed, action If the person
or corporation fails to appear or to give sufficienl
reasons why the Court should take no action, th e Court
will take the action/’ , . ’
Section 30 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007 under
which ncucc t o . been i s s u ^ » .u r .
certain serious repercussions, as it provides.
“Prnppedinffs in cases of contravention.
m Where the Commission is satisfied th a t there h as been
,1’ “ r h S h T to be, . contravention of any p r « e^ '
Chapter II. It may make one or xnore of s “ ^ ° r<L
specked in section 31 as It may deem a p p ro p ria te ^ ^ e
Commission may also impose a penaity
prescribed in section 38 In all cases of contravention of
ilie provisions of 0hapter-li.
(2) Before making an order under subsection

give notice of its tntenifton to p a k e as

reasons therefore to such
appear to it to be p coniravention;
on
(b) give the undertaking an opportunity of being of
such date as may be specified In the I' otlce_ ^ ] iti
placing before the Commission farts an d m atenai
support of its contention;
Provided th a t In case the
opportunity
the case ex p a rte .1
The Commission s h ^ publish its orders in the
Gazette for the information of the
Ari order made tinder subsection s hall have in
notwithstanding anything to the con

045
 Muhammad Nawaz v, Baqir Husscdn 1517
(Muhammad AshraJ Bhatti. J)
any other law for the time being in force or In any
contract or memorandum or articles of association.
(6) Any order issued under this secUon shall include the
reasons on which the order is based."
It Is obvious from the above that the show-cause notice
in general and because of its peculiar nature' in this case shall
seriously affect the person to whom it is issued and the final
order based thereupon can have far reaching adverse effects,
therefore, th e place where It is sent, communicated, served and
received h a s th e relevance for the p i l o s e s of the concurrent
jurisdiction. In the above context. It is pertinent to specify die
word “affect" which according to Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe
sixth Edition, m eans “to act upon; influence; change; enlarge or
abridge; often used in the sense of acting Injuriously upon
D
persons arid things. To lay hold of or attack (as a disease does):
to act; or produce an effect ior result upon: to impress or
influeiice (the m ind or feelings); to touch.” I am of the view that
almost all th e major traits of the meaning shall apply to the
petitioner and both the Islamabad and Lahore High Courte have
the concurrent jurisdiction In the matter, therefore,^^the writ
petition a t Lahore has been competently and validly filed
consequences th a t C. M. No.2202 of 2009 has no merits
and is hereby dismissed.
Application dismissed.
M,B .A,/D-22/L

ait