ISLAMABAD (Online) - Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Interior did not appear on the same page over an unprecedented permission to Indian Judicial Commission to visit and probe Mumbai incident here. During the secretary-level talks focusing counter terror on March 28-29, Pakistan had permitted an Indian Judicial Commission probing Mumbai terror attacks to visit Islamabad in connection with its investigations. Well-placed sources told Online that Pakistan has also committed provision of voice samples of some terror suspects arrested here. These permissions were setting precedents to the disadvantage of Pakistan, the sources pointed out. When these questions were put to Foreign Office Spokesperson Tehmina Janjua during here weekly briefing on Thursday, she initially said the permissions were on basis of commonality and reciprocity. She referred to the Interior Ministry when her attention was drawn to the facts on record that earlier this permission was denied with assertions that no law in Pakistan covers allowing another countries Judicial Commission to exercise investigation authorities here. For the questions of legality as well as technicalities of this issue, you better consult the Interior Ministry, the spokesperson said indicating that Foreign Office was not on the same page with the Interior Ministry over the matter. Asked when Pakistans Judicial Commission probing Samjhota train terror incident seeking access to suspects detained in India, she said dates would be finalised on the diplomatic levels. First the Indian Commission would be visiting Pakistan in the later part of the April, she added. Meanwhile, Foreign Office Spokesperson also confirmed the arrest of Indonesian national Umar Patek, a terrorism linked suspect wanted for 2002 Bali bombing. We can confirm arrest of one suspect which is believed to be one of them wanted for involvement in Bali incident, she added. However, when asked there was one million dollar head money for Umar Patek, she said, First let the Indonesian government confirm it officially that it was the same person then this question of claim would arise.