Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 102‑P of 1984, decided on 29th May, 1984.

(From the order of the Peshawar High Court dated 24‑4‑1984 passed in Writ Petition No. 544 of 1982).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitution of Jirga in pursuance of a written agreement to which petitioner was also party with undertaking to abide by decision thereof‑‑Petitioner admitting receipt of amount from respondent but praying for time to repay said amount‑‑Petitioner had signed unanimous recommendation of Jirga‑‑Jirga passing verdict against petitioner allowing claim of respondent for recovery of money which was approved by Political Agent and affirmed in. petitioner's appeal by Commissioner‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioner challenging recommendations of Jirga, dismissed on preliminary objection that High Court had not jurisdiction to issue process to Federally Administered Tribunal Areas under its constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court on ground that in circumstances of case, it was not a fit case for interference.

Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur 1982 S C M R 433 distinguished.

K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th May, 1984.

.‑‑ The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition by the Peshawar High Court on 24th April, 1984 on the preliminary objection that the said Court had no jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition to challenge the verdict of a Jirga passed against him allowing the claim of respondent No.l for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 which verdict was approved by the Politic Agent, Kohat, and affirmed in the petitioner's appeal by the Commis sioner, Kohat Division, on 18th December, 1982.

3. The narration of the facts in the Commissioner's order, however, reveals that the Jirga had been constituted in pursuance of a written agreement to which the petitioner was a party, that he had nominated a Jirga and that he had undertaken to abide by its decision. The recital further shows that the petitioner had admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 from Khuda Dad respondent and all that he had prayed was for time to repay the amount. He had also duly signed the unanimous recommendation of the Jirga.

4. For grant of leave, learned counsel urges that the constitutional question raised in the petition is similar to the one arising in Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur 1982 S C M R 433 in which leave to appeal was granted and that appeal is still pending. That may be so; but in the circumstances of the instant case we do not find it to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.