Territorial Jurisdiction under Article 199.
 |
| Territorial Jurisdiction under Article 199 |
آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت علاقائی دائرہ اختیار — وفاق کو فریق بنانے سے اختیار پیدا نہیں ہوتا
پس منظر
قانونی سوال
عدالت کا تجزیہ
(1) وجۂ دعویٰ کہاں پیدا ہوئی؟
(2) وفاق کو فریق بنانے کا اثر
(3) اصولِ دائرہ اختیار
(4) رنگدار تدبیر (Colourable Device)
فیصلہ
نظیر
اہم قانونی اصول
Must read judgment
2026 CLC 25
[Islamabad]
Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Messrs NASIR TRADING COMPANY through Authorized Person ---Petitioner
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Plant Protection Quarantine Ministry of National Food and Research Pakistan,
Islamabad and another-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2025, decided on 23rd October, 2025.
Constitution of Pakistan-
-Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court, invoking of-Territorial incompetency-Scope and effect-Federation of Pakistan, impleading of-Scope-Whether Islamabad High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present constitutional petition emanating from a matter that occurred in territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court?--Held: The gravamen of the petitioner's grievance stems from the impugned confiscation order, passed by the respondent (an authorized officer of Department of Plan Plant Protection -Samples Collector at Karachi), which mandated the confiscation and destruction of the imported consignments---Impugned order revealed that it was issued from and signed by the authority situated in Karachi, Sindh-The entire chain of events, from the physical inspection of the consignments at the Karachi port, the drawing of samples, the issuance of the remedial directive, to the final confiscation order, transpired exclusively within the territorial limits of Karachi---Petitioner itself lodged its application for clearance with the office of respondent (Department of Plant Protection) in Karachi---Consequently, the cause of action, in its entirety, arose within the Jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh-Petitioner, in an attempt to bridge said jurisdictional gap, had impleaded the Federation of Pakistan as respondent (No. 1)---However, a scrutiny of the petition revealed a conspicuous absence of any substantive allegations, overt acts, or specific pleadings of mala fide against the Federation-It was manifest that respondent No. 1/Federation had been made a party merely as a proforma respondent, a tactic that could not be permitted to confer jurisdiction upon this (Islamabad High) Court when the root of the dispute and the party against whom the primary relief was sought were squarely located elsewhere-Mere impleading of the Federation, without any specific allegations or cause of action against it, was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a court when the real dispute and the effective authority resided in a different Province-Rationale underpinning said principle was to prevent the abuse of the judicial process and to ensure that constitutional petitions were adjudicated by the High Court within whose territory the aggrieved person resided or the cause of action substantially arose-In the present case, the inclusion of the Federation was a colourable device that did not vest this (Islamabad High) Court with jurisdiction---Petitioner's recourse, if any, laid before the competent Court in Karachi, where real respondent (Department of Plant Protection -Samples Collector) was located and where the entire cause of action had crystallized---Islamabad High Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the substantive legal arguments raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the impugned confiscation order-Constitutional Petition, solely on the ground of territorial incompetence, was dismissed.
Messrs Sethi and Sethi Sons through Humayun Khan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Islamabad and others 2012 PTD 1869 ref.
Barrister Qaim Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
Raja Zamir ud Din Ahmed, A.A.G. for Federation of Pakistan.
Ms. Huma Nazir Kayani, Entomologist for Respondent No. 2.