PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

MASTAN WALI KHAN vs PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/CHAIRMAN, GILGIT-BALTISTAN COUNCIL arts — 2026 PLD 51 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation
2026 PLD 51 ISLAMABAD
Court
Islamabad High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
PLD
Parties
MASTAN WALI KHAN vs PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/CHAIRMAN, GILGIT-BALTISTAN COUNCIL arts
Subject matter
Constitutional
Provisions referred to
S. 3---G

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

MASTAN WALI KHAN VS PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/CHAIRMAN, GILGIT-BALTISTAN COUNCIL 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.

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English