The Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry admitted a petition for regular hearing with the observation that the LHC has the jurisdiction to take cognisance in certain matters which also fall within the domain of Islamabad High Court.
The CJ while rejecting a plea of CBR co-operative housing society that challenged territorial jurisdiction of the LHC observed that an aggrieved person can sue federal government or a corporation or a statutory authority having exclusive residence or location at Islamabad, either in Islamabad High Court or in the respective high court of the province concerned.
Muhammad Akram and others, members of the housing society, filed a writ petition assailing election result of the society's managing committee. LHC registrar raised an objection on the petition with regard to its maintainability; however, the CJ proceeded with the case as an objection case and to decide the matter of maintainability by the Court itself.
The society through its counsel also took a plea that the LHC had no jurisdiction to hear the petition as the society had its permanent office at Islamabad. He said after the establishment of IHC, all matters pertaining to Islamabad capital territory were to be heard and decided exclusively by the IHC.
The counsel further said that the petitioners are the members of a society which maintains its office at Islamabad and entire record is also available in the Federal Capital. He said, it will be inconvenient to produce the record at Lahore and moreover other respondents in the petition also maintain their offices in Islamabad.
The society's counsel argued that members of the society belong to all provinces and in case this petition is entertained in LHC, the members of the other provinces would file separate petitions before their respective high courts and there will be a possibility of conflicting judgements on the same issue.
It was also argued, if LHC entertained the petition, the respondents will become a rolling stone while pursuing such matters before different high courts and it would not be possible for them to properly defend themselves before different forums.
On the other side, counsel for the petitioners argued that election of the society's managing committee were held at all provincial headquarters, therefore, IHC as well as other high courts in other provinces are equally competent to adjudicate upon the matters arising out of the disputes to the election of the society. Counsel said if petitioners were directed to seek remedy exclusively before IHC, they will not only be burdened with further expenditures in shape of transportation but also face rigors of long journey from all over the country.
After hearing both sides, Chief Justice observed that in many reported cases Supreme Court has already held that provincial high courts have concurrent jurisdiction in certain matters where Islamabad High Court has also the jurisdiction. "The right given by the Constitution to any aggrieved person cannot be taken back just on the ground of inconvenience of the other party," Chief Justice remarked and rejected the objection raised by the society.