Territorial Jurisdiction and Quo Warranto Petitions

The Lahore High Court examined whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the appointment of the Chairman of the National Tariff Commission (NTC) based in Islamabad (2024 LHC 4073). The Court explained that under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, a High Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a person holding or purporting to hold a public office within its territorial limits.

Background:

M/s Z. A. Corporation filed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as a Member and Chairman of the National Tariff Commission (NTC). The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which Respondent No. 3 held these positions. The appointment notifications were issued by the Federal Government, and Respondent No. 3 was based in Islamabad. The preliminary issue raised by the Assistant Attorney General was whether the Lahore High Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, given that Respondent No. 3 was posted in Islamabad and the notifications originated from Islamabad.

Key Issues:

Territorial Jurisdiction Under Article 199(1)(b)(ii): Whether the Lahore High Court had territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against an individual holding a public office in Islamabad.

Scope of Territorial Jurisdiction in Quo Warranto Petitions: Whether a quo warranto petition can be filed in any High Court if the respondent’s office has national jurisdiction, or whether it is confined to the territorial limits where the respondent holds office.

Court's Analysis:

Territorial Jurisdiction Under Article 199(1)(b)(ii): The Court highlighted the specific language of Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, which allows a High Court to issue orders requiring a person “within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court” holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority they claim to hold that office. The Court emphasized that the respondent must be holding or purporting to hold a public office within the territorial limits of the Court to invoke its jurisdiction.

Application to the Case at Hand: The Court noted that Respondent No. 3 was based in Islamabad, and his appointment as Chairman of the NTC was made by the Federal Government in Islamabad. Since he was not holding any public office within the territorial limits of the Lahore High Court, the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against him. The Court referenced relevant case law, including Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1997 SC 334) and Mirza Luqman Masud vs. Government of Pakistan (2015 PLC (C.S.) 526), which support the principle that territorial jurisdiction is tied to the location where the respondent holds office.

Distinction From Other Cases: The Court distinguished this case from others cited by the petitioner, including Shahid Mehmood Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan and Musa Raza vs. Federation of Pakistan, noting that in those cases, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was either not raised or the petition was related to personal grievances rather than a quo warranto petition.

Court's Conclusion: The Lahore High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition because Respondent No. 3 held public office in Islamabad, not within the territorial limits of the Lahore High Court. The petition was thus dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and the Court directed the petitioner to present the case before the Islamabad High Court, if so advised.

Contact Us:

For expert legal assistance in constitutional law, including quo warranto petitions and challenges to public appointments, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. Our team provides specialized advice and representation in navigating complex jurisdictional issues in constitutional petitions.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.