P L D 2026 Islamabad 51

 P L D 2026 Islamabad 51

Before Khadim Hussain Soomro, J

MASTAN WALI KHAN ---Petitioner

Versus

PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/CHAIRMAN, GILGIT-BALTISTAN

COUNCIL through Principal Secretary PM Secretariat and others ---

Respondents

Writ Petition No. 947 of 2025, decided on 29th July, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199(1)(b)(ii), 213, 215 & 218---Gilgit Baltistan Chief Election

Commissioner (Terms and Conditions) Order, 2014, S. 3---

Government of Gilgit Baltistan Order, 2018, Art. 97(1)---Territorial

and subject-matter jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court---Scope---

Writ of quo warranto---Maintainability---Petitioner assailed

continuous holding the office of Chief Election Commissioner of

Gilgit Baltistan after expiry of previous term and re-appointment

without consultation with the Chief Minister and Leader of

Opposition of Gilgit Baltistan Assembly---Validity---When actions are

undertaken by federal authorities operating across Pakistan,

territorial jurisdiction lies with the High Court of the province or

territory where the operative acts occur and where the

consequential effect of such acts is felt---Primary and direct effect of

the appointment fell within the electoral and governance affairs of

Gilgit-Baltistan---Islamabad High Court, being a territorial court of

limited jurisdiction, cannot assume advisory or supervisory

authority over functionaries and legal frameworks established

exclusively for Gilgit-Baltistan---No part of the cause of action had

arisen within the territorial limits of Islamabad, nor did the office or

the functions of respondent bear any connection to this territory---

Dominant object of the petition pertained exclusively to executive

and quasi judicial acts performed within Gilgit-Baltistan under its

unique constitutional framework, thus, Islamabad High Court was

divested of jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petition either on

territorial or subject-matter grounds---Cause of action, the subject

matter of the petition and the appointment were all inextricably

linked to the territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, thus, Islamabad High Court

lacked both territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain

the constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in

circumstances.

Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013

SCMR 1205; Rasheed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 121; Officer incharge, Army Housing Directorate, Karachi v. Federation of

Pakistan and others PLD 2024 SC 576; Al-Jehad Trust and others v.

Federation of Pakistan and others 1990 SCMR 1379; Civil Aviation

Authority v. Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan and others CMA

No. 2415/2020 in 2944/2019 and C.M.A. 2944/2019 in Constitution

Petition No. 50/2018; Khalid Khursheed Khan and others v. Federation

of Pakistan and others C.M.As Nos. 3985 of 2024 and 1564 of 2025 in

Constitution Petition No. 35 of 2022; 2022 SCMR 2058 and PLD 2025

Lah. 200 ref.

Taufiq Asif v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf PLD 2024 SC 610; Messrs

The Communicators (Pvt) Ltd. v. PEMRA W.P. No. 2172 of 2025 and PLD

2019 SC 357 rel.

Petitioner in person.

Hafiz Ehsan Ahmed Khokhar for Respondent No. 4.

Ms. Zainab Samantash for Respondents Nos. 1 , 2 and 3.

Rashid Hafeez, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan and Azmat

Bashir Tarar, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents.

Ms. Asma Siddique, Section Officer (Legal), Gilgit-Baltistan Council,

Islamabad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2025.

JUDGMENT

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.---Through this writ petition, the

petitioner has called into question the legality of the re-appointment of

Respondent No.4 as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of Gilgit-

Baltistan, primarily on the ground that it was made by a caretaker

federal government without following the procedure of meaningful

consultation, thus infringing constitutional principles governing the

independence and impartiality of election commissions. The petitioner

seeks issuance of writs in the nature of quo warranto and certiorari to

declare the appointment void ab initio and to direct initiation of a

fresh appointment process.

2. The brief facts necessary for determination of this petition are

that under Section 5 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Election

Commissioner (Terms and Conditions) Order, 2014, the tenure of

Respondent No. 4 as Chief Election Commissioner Gilgit-Baltistan was

to expire on 30.07.2022. However, despite the lapse of his statutory

term, Respondent No. 4 continued to hold office until 30.07.2024 and

again took a fresh oath on 31.07.2024. This re-appointment was made

by Respondent No. 1 on the advice of Respondent No. 3, without any consultation with the Chief Minister or Leader of the Opposition in the

Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly.

3. The petitioner contends that the criteria for appointment of the

Chief Election Commissioner Gilgit-Baltistan under various Executive

Orders, including the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Reforms 2019, are

inconsistent with the constitutional principles set out in Articles 213

and 218 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,

and Article 50 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution,

1974; that these provisions require meaningful consultation between

the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure the

appointment of an impartial and independent Chief Election

Commissioner; that such meaningful consultation was not made. It is

further contended that Respondent No. 4 did not fulfil the prescribed

criteria for appointment as Chief Election Commissioner Gilgit-

Baltistan. He never served in the judicial service of Gilgit-Baltistan

through a regular appointment or through the Public Service

Commission, but had been serving as a District Attorney in BPS-18

prior to his contract appointment as an ATC Judge. His appointment,

therefore, did not meet the standards set out under the applicable

rules; that the petitioner further submits that the re-appointment of

Respondent No. 4 was made in deviation from the principle of

neutrality and impartiality essential for free and fair elections. Such

appointment, made without consultation with the Chief Minister and

Leader of Opposition of Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly, cannot be sustained

in law. The role of a caretaker government is confined to day-to-day

matters, and it cannot make appointments of such magnitude and

permanence. In support of his submissions, Learned

counsel/petitioner in person relied upon reported judgments of the

Supreme Court of Pakistan cited as Khawaja Muhammad Asif v.

Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1205), Rasheed Ahmed

v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2017 SC 121), Officer incharge, Army

Housing Directorate, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

2024 SC 576), Al-Jehad Trust and others v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (1990 SCMR 1379) and observations made in different orders

passed by the Apex Court in CMA No. 2415/2020 in 2944/2019 and

C.M.A. 2944/2019 in Const.P. 50/2018 titled Civil Aviation Authority v.

Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan and others, Constitution

Petitions Nos. 35, 36, 37 of 2022 and C.M.As Nos. 11480 of 2024 and

C.M.As Nos. 3985 of 2024 and 1564 of 2025 in Const. P. No. 35 of 2022

titled Khalid Khursheed Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and

others.

4. Conversely, Learned Additional Attorney General, as well as the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, raised

a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that the

office of the Chief Election Commissioner, Gilgit-Baltistan, is situated

within the territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, performs functions exclusively

concerning the affairs of Gilgit-Baltistan, and is appointed on the

advice of the Governor of Gilgit-Baltistan by the Prime Minister of

Pakistan under the provisions of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan

Order, 2018, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. It was

further contended that the Islamabad High Court does not possess

territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality of the impugned

appointment. In support of this argument, reliance was placed upon

the judgments reported as PLD 2024 Supreme Court 610, 2022 SCMR

2058, and PLD 2025 Lahore 200.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submitted that the

appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Election Commissioner,

Gilgit-Baltistan, was made strictly in accordance with Article 97(1) of

the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, read with Section 3 of

the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Election Commissioner (Terms and

Conditions) Order, 2014. It was emphasized that the appointment was

carried out by the Chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan Council on the

advice of its Vice Chairman through a properly notified order, and that

the appointee duly assumed office upon taking oath before the Chief

Judge of the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government of

Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, remains the governing legal instrument,

as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and that the said

appointment was made during the tenure of a permanent government,

not under a caretaker setup. The principle of expressio unius est

exclusio alterius was invoked to argue that reappointment was not

barred under the applicable legal framework and is therefore valid.

Reliance was placed on judgments, including 2017 PLC (C.S.) 645, to

support the legality of reappointment in the absence of an express

prohibition.

7. The central question before this Court, therefore, is whether the

Islamabad High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of

the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate

upon matters concerning the appointment and functions of the Chief

Election Commissioner of Gilgit-Baltistan, an office established under a

special constitutional arrangement confined to that territory.

8. Perusal of record reveals that the entire factual matrix giving rise

to the impugned appointment is territorially rooted in Gilgit-Baltistan.

The office of the Chief Election Commissioner is established under the

Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Election Commissioner (Terms and Conditions)

Order, 2014, read with the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018.

The appointment in question was effected pursuant to a notification and was followed by the administration of oath by the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan.

9. The principle of dominant object and the doctrine of localized

jurisdiction, as expounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Taufiq

Asif v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2024 SC 610) and adopted by

this Court in Messrs The Communicators (Pvt) Ltd. v. PEMRA (W.P. No.

2172 of 2025), mandates that in determining jurisdiction under Article

199, the Court must identify where the cause of action arose and the

true situs of the impugned action. The mere fact that the Prime

Minister of Pakistan or the Federal Government may have played a

formal or administrative role in the process does not suffice to vest

jurisdiction in this Court when the dominant grievance and its

execution are confined entirely to a different territory, i.e., Gilgit-

Baltistan.

10. It is now settled law that even when actions are undertaken by

federal authorities operating across Pakistan, territorial jurisdiction

lies with the High Court of the province or territory where the

operative acts occur and where the consequential effect of such acts is

felt. In the instant case, the primary and direct effect of the impugned

appointment lies in the electoral and governance affairs of Gilgit-

Baltistan.

11. The Islamabad High Court, being a territorial court of limited

jurisdiction, cannot assume advisory or supervisory authority over

functionaries and legal frameworks established exclusively for Gilgit-

Baltistan. The Hon ble Supreme Court in PLD 2019 SC 357 has

categorically held that matters arising out of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order,

2018 fall outside the purview of provincial High Courts and any

adjudication on such questions is vested solely in the Supreme Court of

Pakistan under its original jurisdiction.

12. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that no part of the

cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Islamabad,

nor does the office or the functions of Respondent No.4 bear any

connection to this territory. The dominant object of the petition

pertains exclusively to executive and quasi-judicial acts performed

within Gilgit-Baltistan under its unique constitutional framework.

Accordingly, this Court is divested of jurisdiction to entertain the

instant writ petition either on territorial or subject-matter grounds.

13. In light of the foregoing discussion, and guided by the binding

dicta of the Supreme Court as well as settled principles governing

territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, it is

manifest that the cause of action, the subject matter of the petition,

and the impugned appointment are all inextricably linked to the

territory of Gilgit-Baltistan. This Court, therefore, lacks both territorial

and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

However, it is clarified that no observation is made on the merits of the case, and the petitioner shall remain at liberty to avail appropriate

remedies before the competent forum having jurisdiction in the

matter, strictly in accordance with law.

SA/146/Isl. Petition dismissed.