1991 PLP 1805 (CLC)

Writ Petitions Nos.102 and 103 and Civil Miscellaneous No.659 of 1991, decided on 10th April, 1991. ‑‑‑‑Art. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 199‑‑‑Transfer of Constitutional petitions from Rawalpindi Bench of High Court to the Principal seat at Lahore‑‑ No nexus existing between Constitutional petition sought to be transferred with Constitutional petitions pending at principal seat‑‑‑Constitutional petitions sought to be transferred inter se, had no common points‑‑‑Only point raised for transfer of said Constitutional petitions was that Rules involved in all the Constitutional petitions were the same‑‑‑Petitioner's contentions i.e. lack of nexus and common point between the petitions sought to be transferred being correct, prayer for transfer of Constitutional petitions from Rawalpindi Bench to Principal seat at Lahore was declined. Rana Muhammad Arshad Addl.A-G with Muhammad Iqbal Vahniwal for Appellant. Dr. G.S. Khan for writ Petitioner. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that there is no nexus between the writ petitions sought to be transferred from Rawalpindi Bench to the Principal seat with the four petitions pending at the principal seat. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also pointed out that not only that, the two writ petitions inter se even have no common point in that in the first writ petition viz. No.102/91, an exemption has been claimed on the basis of rules whilst in the second writ petition No.103/1991, the rules have been questioned as laying excessive conditions in Margalla as compared to other areas.

2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has in addition, submitted that not only the two writ petitions which are the subject of the present discussion are pending at Rawalpindi, but there are six others as well in which the rules referred to by the learned Additional Advocate‑General are involved regarding which no transfer application has been made. In the context of the above position, learned counsel submits that writ petitioners would be put to great inconvenience to come all the way to Lahore to prosecute their petitions as compared to respondent who is in stronger position to defend himself at any place where the proceedings initiated against it.

3. The only submission made by the learned Additional Advocate‑General is that rules involved in the writ petitions are the same. I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners have force. There is no ground made out for directing the transmission of the record of Writ Petition Nos.102/91 and 103/91; to the principal seat for being heard here. The C.M. is dismissed. H.B. ./M‑2995/L Application dismissed