1. ' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal filed on 25th September, 1974, the appellant an ex-Naib-Tehsildar seeks to assail the order Exhibit P W/1 dated 18th March, 1972 (published in the Official Gazette dated 21st April, 1972) vide which he was retired from service under MLR-114 by the Governor of Punjab. The appellant commenced his career as Naib-Tehsildar on 24th September, 1964 in Multan Division. After his first posting to Makhdoom Rashid, he was posted as Naib-Tehsildar Kot Adu where he remained from 17th August, 1965 to 21st September, 1968. Thereafter he served at various places and at the time of his retirement on 18th March, 1972 was posted at Khanewal. It is claimed that throughout his service the appellant enjoyed a good reputation and his performance was altogether free from blemish. In view of his excellent record of service, he was recommended in 1970 by the Commissioner Multan Division for promotion to the Provincial Civil Service which is usually open to the senior-most Tehsildars having good record of service. It is also claimed that he was responsible for the collection of Rs, 5 lacs towards the Defence Fund in 1971. In the circumstances the order of retirement came as an utter shock to the appellant.
2. ' He preferred a review petition under M L R 116 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid Review Petition, on 4th November, 1972 he sent a telegram to the Chief Martial Law Administrator expressing his apprehension that he did not expect a fair comment from the Provincial Government which was headed by the then Governor Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar with whom and with whose family the appellant had an embittered background.
4. Being unsuccessful in securing a favourable result in the Review Petition, be approached the High Court with Writ Petition No, 447-S/73 which was declared to have abated under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Hence this appeal on 25th September, 1974 by the appellant.
5. ' In this appeal the appellant states that in view of his clean career his case did not fall in any of the provisions of MLR No :114 which was to the following effect :- "(3) (1) Where in the opinion of the competent authority, a person in Government service or a person in corporation service, is-
(a) corrupt or has a reputation of being corrupt, or has assumed a style of living beyond his known sources of income, or
(b) guilty of misconduct, or
(c) inefficient or has for any reason ceased to be efficient, or
(d) engaged or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in sub versive activities.
6. "The competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in the terms and conditions of service of such person, by order in the official Gazette, dismiss or remove such person from service, or reduce him in rank, or direct that he shall prematurely retire from service.
7. ' According to appellant the impugned order was absolutely mute as to the basis of the opinion of the competent authority as contemplated under the MLR-114. According to the appellant none of the clauses of para (3) of the aforesaid Regulation were attracted to his case. The appellant on the other hand alleged that the order was mala fide inasmuch as he had arrested Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khan on 1st May, 1976 In the District Courts of Muzaffargarh in execution of the warrant of arrest issued by the Tehsildar Kot Adu to non-payment of arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs, 6,044 by Mr. Khar. Earlier in 1965 he had also arrested Mr. Karim Dad, a stepbrother of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar on a similar charge. For that the appellant had to face a legal notice and also enquiry at the instance of the Khar family. According to him Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar had threatened him and the threat materialized in the form of the impugned retirement order passed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar. Since the appeal contained factual allegations as to mala fides which had to be established by leading evidence by the appellant, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 8th October, 1974 :-
(1) Whether the decision to retire the appellant was not taken with due care and proper application of mind in regard to the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No, 114 (O. P)?
(2) Whether the review petition of the appellant has not been decided after due care and proper attention (0. P)?
(3) Whether the Martial Law Regulation No, 114 is not a valid piece of legislation (0. P)?
(4) Does the non-service of show-cause notice and non-furnishing of opportunity to show-cause to the appellant before retiring him from service and before deciding his review petition, vitiate the appellant's retirement from service (0. P)?
(5) Whether the action to retire the appellant was taken mala fide (O. P)?
(6) Relief.
8. ' The appellant produced as many as 9 witnesses. Mr. Riaz Pervaiz (A.W. 1) was the Senior Staff Reporter of the Daily Nawa-i-Waqt. He proved the News Item appearing in Nawa-i-Waqt dated 25th January, 1972 purporting to report the public speech delivered by Khar, the then Governor of Punjab at Muzaffargarh on 17th January, 1970 to the effect : {{URDU TEXT}} ' Ch. Muhammad Khan MNA from Samundari District Lyallpur, (A.W. 2), and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, MPA Sahiwal (AW 8), appeared to depose that they knew the appellant and they were convinced that the appellant had been wrongly retired and that they had approached Mr. Uhulam Mustafa Khar to apprise him of this and also to impress upon him that the case should not be made a matter of personal prestige and that justice be done. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf (A W 8) belongs to the District of the appellant. AW 3, AW 4, AW 5 and AW 6 were the official witnesses. Qazi Ahmad Shafi, the then Deputy Commissioner Muzaffargarh deposed that he had received no complaint against the appellant and that on 11th March, 1967 he had called for the explanation of the field staff for their failure to recover the land revenue from Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Kbar's family. AW 4, Mr. Allah Wasaya produced the recovery file of the land revenue pertaining to Mr. Khar and his family.
9. Syed Altaf Hussain Shah (AW5) who was the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh and was himself retired under MLR-114 (since reinstated), deposed that the appellant had consulted him before arresting Mr. Khar and he had provided the appellant with peons to assist him in arresting Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar. AW 6 Hameed Asghar an official from the Punjab Board of Revenue, Lahore produced the records only. Mr. Rahmat Ali Alvi, AW 7, an advocate from Muzaffargarb deposed that after the arrest of Mr. Khar, he was approached by his brother for his release. He was directed by the Revenue Assistant Muzaffargarh to approach Tehsildar Kot Adu to which place Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar was taken after his arrest. The witness went to Kot Adu where at 4.00 p. m. The appellant released Mr. Kbar against payment of the arrears of land revenue. The appellant also appeared as AW 9 and he also stated that on execution of warrant of arrest at about 10.00 a. m. On 1st of May, 1967, he arrested Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar and released him on receipt of the payment of land revenue the same evening at 4.00 p.m. Under the instructions of Revenue Assistant, Muzaffargarh. He also stated that he has been enforcing the recoveries of land revenue against Mr. Ghulam Mustafa and his family in which process he also detained on 23rd November, 1965. Malik Karim Dad, a stepbrother of Mr. Khar because of his default to pay a sum of Rs, 385 he was also released the same day after the payment. He also stated that he had 8 years' unblemished service and during his entire length of service he had neither been charge-sheeted nor reprimanded and nor any enquiry was ever conducted against him. He was responsible for collecting Defence Fund to the tune of Rs, 5 lacs during the 1971 War. He also stated that in the year 1970 in view of his meritorious services the Commissioner, Multan Division recommended him for promotion to the rank of P.C.S. Out of turn. He further stated that in the year 1969 he was posted at Burewala. He was transferred from Burewala but was reposted to Burewala on his representation. In addition he relied upon the documents Exhibit PW9/1-I I which related to recovery of the land revenue from the Khar family and comprised of demand notices, the legal notice served upon him by Khar family and the warrant of arrest and the release order of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar. Thus he argued that in view of his past performance and the background of unpleasant relationship with Mr. Khar and his family, the retirement order could not be termed but mala. Fide. Secondly his case was not covered by any of the clauses of para. 3 of MLR-114. Thus the order passed was without jurisdiction. Thirdly, he also attacked the Gazette Notification dated 21st April, 1972 as according to the appellant under paragraph 3 of MLR 114 the order of retirement was to be published in the official Gazette and was to take effect from the date of publication. Since the aforesaid date occurred after the lifting of the Martial Law, therefore, the order was not protected under Article 269 of the Constitution. The order having been passed without providing any opportunity was illegal and void ab anitio. With these submissions the appellant contended that his appeal be accepted.
10. Lastly, he objected to the defence evidence on the ground that the same had been produced after considerable delay which implied that it had to be arranged. As to the enquiries against the appellant he submitted that no such plea was disclosed in the written statement as such the evidence was not admissible. Mr. Azam Rasul, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plea of mala fides as advanced by the appellant in appeal is belated and an afterthought.
11. He pointed out that in the first instance in the Review Petition filed by the appellant under MLR 116 there is no mention of any mala fides on the part of the then Governor. He further submitted that even in the Writ Petition which was drafted under the advice of a lawyer, the appellant never disclosed any such case. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the plea has been discovered and pressed into service only after the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Saeed Ahmad's Case (1). According to the learned counsel if the strain between the appellant and the Khar family was so obvious, there was no reason as to why the same could not have been set forth in the Review Petition or the Writ Petition. He also argued that even on the factual plane the plea is not well founded. The learned counsel pointed out that the role of the appellant in the entire episode was that of an ordinary Government functionary. He pointed out that the appellant has clearly conceded in his X-examination that the suggestion for the arrest of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar never originated from him and he was just obeying the orders of his superiors and had hardly any choices to act otherwise. If at all Mr. Khar had a cause of satisfaction rather than annoyance, inasmuch as the appellant showed concession of releasing him from the custody even after the Court hours against the payment of arrears of land revenue. According to the learned counsel, Mr. Khar very well knew that who was behind these proceedings and the appellant only acting in obedience to the orders of the high-ups in the country. According to the learned counsel in fact it was the appellant's own case in the telegram dated 5th November, 1972 sent by him to the Chief Martial Law Administrator that he was acting in obedience to the wishes of his superior and it was an accidental mishap and that the late F. M. Muhammad Ayub Khan's Regime was not happy with Mr, Ghulam Mustafa Khar. With regard to the speech dated 17th January, {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1974 SC 151 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' 1972 the learned counsel pointed out that Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar had never specifically adverted to the appellant. According to the counsel it was purely a matter of personal opinion of Sheikh Riaz Ahmad Pervaiz (AW 1) that Naib-Tehsildar was also included in the term Tehsildar otherwise the speech in terms did not relate to the appellant. So far the evidence of AW 2 and AW 8 were concerned the learned counsel pointed out that both the legislators made statements which were not consistent with their conduct in the respective Assemblies inasmuch as none of them expressed any view with regard to the injustice to the appellant at the time of passing the Service Laws by the respective Assemblies. Thus their evidence will have to be taken with a grain of salt. He also controverted the contention of the appellant that his record was clean and his services were meritorious. He argued that in the year 1966 an enquiry was instituted against the appellant and he earned bad reports in the year 1966 and 1969. He also submitted that AW 3. Qazi Ahmad Shafi the then Deputy Commissioner Muzaffargarh himself had given a bad report to the appellant. He also contended that in the year 1959 the appellant had to be transferred from Burewala on the complaint of Hassan Din and Ghulam Nabi who alleged that the appellant was responsible for registration of a false case under section 370, P. P. C. Against them. Similarly there was a complaint by Sardar Muhammad and Habib Ullah to the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh against the appellant. He also relied upon the evidence of AW 1, Muhammad Umar Khan son of Kashmir Khan resident of Chak 622/TDA Tehsil Kot Adu and RW 2 Hakim Ghulam Haider son of Mian Allah Bakhsh resident of Kot Adu city itself. Both of them alleged that the appellant indulged in gambling and drinking and had general reputation for corruption. They also stated that in early 1972 they had personally, complained to Mr, Khar when he visited Khar Gharbi, a place situated 10 or 12 miles from Kot Adu. They also claimed that some other worker of the P. P. P. Were also present to support their complaint. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that in view of the defence evidence the competent authority was abundantly justified to frame the opinion to retire the appellant under MLR-114 which was clearly attracted to the facts of this case. The plea of mala fide being an afterthought and inconsistent with the conduct of the appellant towards Mr. Khar at the time of release and also not warranted by the facts on the record, has not been established from the record. It was submitted by him that the normal performance of duties by the appellant for the recovery of land revenue furnishes scant justification to impute male fide to the competent authority. With regard to the Notification the plea of the learned counsel was that this was never taken in the ground of appeal and he was precluded from urging the same before this Tribunal.
12. Even otherwise the order has been passed on the 18th of March, 1972 and has been duly published in the Gazette Notification though on 24th April, 1974. In the absence of any such provisions in the M.
13. L. R. The Notification was unexceptionable. With regard to the objection of the appellant that the respondent did not specify the fact of complaints and enquiries against him in the Written statement, the learned counsel argued that all the evidence need not be disclosed in the pleading which otherwise were in accordance widh law. In reply appellant pointed out that so far as the question of complaints were concerned the complaint filed in the year 1966 by Sardar Muhammad and Habib Ullah was never marked to hint nor he was ever confronted with the same. Thus the same could not be taken into consideration. Similarly the complaint of Ghulam Nabi and Hassan Din was tiled and D. S. P. Vehari on 20th June, 1970 had reported that the appellant was not in any way at fault. With regard to the transfer of the appellant from Burewala by the Commissioner he submitted that he was re-transferred to Burewala under the orders of the Commissioner, Multan Division dated 20th September, 1969. Thus no adverse conclusion could be drawn from the same.
14. He also pointed out that he had distinctly stated in his evidence that Mr. Khar had administered dire threats to him and he was served with a notice Exh. PW-9/3 under section 80, C.P.C. By Malik Karim Dad, a stepbrother of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar on 23rd November, 1965. Similarly two more notices Exh. AW 9/4 dated 26th January, 1966 and PW 9/9 dated 30th November, 1966 were served upon him by Ghulam Miladi Khar, the real brother of the then Governor of Punjab. He also relied upon various letters Exhibit as PW 9/7, PW 9/9 which he wrote to Mr. Khar to his annoyance for the recovery of land revenue. He also pointed out that it is wrong to suggest that he never raised the ground of mala fides prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. He relied upon the telegram sent by him to the President of Pakistan on 5th November, 1972 in which he expressed the apprehension that the Provincial Government headed by Mr. Khar the then Governor of Puhjab may not offer fair comments on the Review Petition as he had arrested him and he became annoyed with him which furnishes the cause of his premature retirement under M L R 114. He also submitted that the Journalist while reporting the speech of Mr. Khar had no distinction in his mind between Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar and thus the report in view of his statement has to be read pertaining to the appellant also.
15. ' The appellant has very strongly urged the plea of mala fides on the part of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar the then Governor of West Pakistan who was competent authority with respect to him and who had actually passed the orders of retirement against him under M L R 114. We observe from the pleadings of the parties that on account of the default of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar and his other close relatives in the matter of payment of Government dues, and which it was the responsibility of the appellant to pursue for recovery, the appellant had to resort to coercive measures against them. In the process the appellant was served with a notice Exh. PW 9/3 under section 80, C.P.C. By Malik Karim Dad, a stepbrother of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar, on 23rd November, 1965. Two similar notices were served upon the appellant by Mr. Miladi Khar the brother of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar.
16. It also fell to the lot of the appellant to issue notices over his signatures to Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar on 23rd November, 1965, 26th January, 1966 and 30th November, 1966 for the unpleasant duty of demanding recovery of Government dues, which could only be a source of irritation and annoyance for Mr. Khar. It was thus the appellant who was in the forefront of the proceedings against Mr. Khar and his family for the recovery of Government dues which culminated in the arrest of first Mr. Karim Dad Khar in 1965 and later of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar himself in 1967 at the bands of the appellant. On the complaint of Mr. G. M. Khar an enquiry was also held by the Commissioner against the appellant which ended in his exoneration. In our opinion the foregoing events lend considerable weight to the allegations of annoyance and ill-will of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar towards the appellant which regulated in the appellant's retirement in a mall fide manner when Mr. Khar came into powers. The evidence of two Legislators i. e. Mr. Muhammad Khan, MNA PW/2. And Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, MPA, PW/8, as narrated above has also supported the version of the appellant. The assertion of PW/2 that, although he did not make a pointed reference to the case of the appellant, he did make a general speech on the floor of the house recommending that the officers who were (compulsorily retired under MLR 114) should be given an opportunity of being heard, goes unrefuted. No friendship or kinship of the witnesses with the appellant or his brothers could be proved. Similarly, the evidence of PW/8 remains unshaken. The statement of P W 2 and PW/8 mutually corroborate each other. We may observe that the fact that the two legislators did not specifically raise the question of appellant's undue retirement on the floor of the House, has been explained in the course of arguments on the ground that the Party men are bound by the Party discipline and cannot ventilate such controversial issues outside the Party circles, much less on the floor of the House. The explanation otherwise appeared to be both plausible and acceptable. Resultantly we are inclined to believe the statements of the two witnesses.
17. ' Another argument on behalf of the respondents is that since the appellant was merely performing his legal duties devolving upon him by virtue of his office it could not have caused annoyance to Mr. Khar. Firstly, as narrated above, it was the appellant who was the contact man with Mr. Khar for performing the duties which were obviously unpleasan for Mr. Khar and it was the person of the appellant in whom the harsh and coercive proceedings of the Government against Mr. Khar came to be symbolized. It was, therefore, obviously the appellant who could be the target of any revengeful action on the part of Mr. Khar. The following words attributed to Mr. Khar as narrated by PW the Reporter of daily Nawa-i-Waqt have gone unrebutted {{URDU TEXT}} ' Even if Mr. Khar had the 'Tehsi Idar' in mind (as contended by the respondents) even then it is obvious that the fact that the official had acted in the legitimate discharge of the duties devolving upon him, did not count with Mr. Khar for giving him any quarter. We thus find no weight in the forementioned contention of the respondents which is replied.
18. ' The further argument that in the speech of Mr. Khar, if at all there is any venom it is against the Tehsildar and not the Naib-Tehsildar, is also of no avail. In the first place the remarks are clearly directed against the person who put him behind the bars and it is none of the case of the respondents that it was any person other than the appellant. Secondly as most of the processes regarding recoveries of Government dues emanated in the name of Tehsildar (though signed and executed by the appellant) it is not altogether unbelievable that Mr. Khar confused the Tehsildar with Naib-Tehsildar.
19. ' The respondent's witnesses RW 1 and RW 2 also do not displace the plea of mala fides on the part of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar. Both the witnesses depose that they had personally never given any bribe to the appellant for any favour. RW 2 was not even a landlord in Kot Adu Tehsil. RW 1 has made the vague allegation that he had heard that the appellant indulged in gambling and was corrupt but he is not a personal witness of any of these facts. RW 2 alleges that the appellant had converted the Municipal Library at Kot Adu a 'Club' where the officers use to drink and gamble, although he admits that there was nothing on the record to show that the library was shifted at the asking of the appellant. Both the witnesses depose that during the visit of Mr. Khar on tour to Mauza Khar Gharbi in the early days of his appointment as Governor, they made oral complaints to him bad reputation of the appellant which was noted down by one of the officials present there. No supporting documentary evidence has been produced to show that any list on the recommendation of the witnesses was actually made out for the purposes of taking action under MLR 114, and the name of the appellant existed in this list. Even no date of the visit of Mr. Khar is mentioned in their statement. RW 1 has also conceded in the cross-examination that the appellant was responsible for enforcing recovery of income-tax against the witnesses although he adds that the appellant did not commit any injustice against him.
20. The conduct of the respondent parties in the matter of producing their evidence also calls for comments. The evidence of the appellant stood closed on 9th December, 1974, when the respondents were called upon to produce their evidence. Thereafter, upto 22nd of March, 1976 no less than seven adjournments were granted to the respondents on their request, yet no evidence could be produced by them. On 22nd March, 1975, this Tribunal was constrained to pass the order, inter alia that: -- "Keeping in view all the circumstances that we have already granted five adjournments to the respondents with the express condition that no further adjournments would be granted, we adjourn this case to 19th April, 1976 with the clear understanding that if respondent fails to file the application for summoning the evidence by 8th of April at the latest, the respondent shall stand closed and they will not be allowed to summon any evidence thereafter. However, if the respondents want to produce the witnesses at their own risk and responsibility they shall file the list of witnesses by 10th April, 1976 to enable the appellant to prepare themselves for cross- examination."
21. ' Even on the next hearing on 19th April, 1976 there was an application by the respondents to adjourn the case for 3 weeks as they were unable to summon their witnesses on that date. It was, however, held by the Tribunal on that date that by virtue of our order of 22nd March, 1976, the evidence of the appellant stood already closed and the case was consequently adjourned for arguments to 10th June, 1976. On the said date the learned counsel for the appellant being not available, the arguments in the case were put off to 20th July, 1976, but on this date again the respondents asked for adjournment on the plea that the Advocate-General, who had to appear in this case before us, was not available. We may observe here that the learned Advocate-General never appeared before us on any of the seven hearings held subsequently. The case was however adjourned to 5th August, 1976, on which date surprisingly the learned counsel for the respondents put in an applicable section seeking permission to lead evidence without even disclosing the names of the witnesses to be produced. As this was the first case under MLR 114, which had matured for decision, it was felt that if some evidence is available, it would be in the interest of justice to bring it in record. So with much reluctance the request of the appellant was accepted by us. It was thus on 1st September, 1976 that the respondents produced the two witnesses RW 1 and RW 2 before us. With the sequence of events as narrated above the conduct of the respondent leads us to the irresistible conclusion that they had been desperately hunting for some sort of evidence suiting their version of the case and after much vacillation it took them 1 year and about 9 months to produce the type of evidence that they have managed to put before us. Had the respondent's two witnesses been natural witnesses, we see no reason why 11 adjournments had to be sought over a period of 1 year and 9 months C before putting them in the witness box. It is also to be noted that the period at the disposal of the respondents for producing their evidence included the period from February, 1975 to September, 1975 when the Tribunal was not functioning.
22. In short the conduct of the respondents and the quality of evidence produced by them does not inspire confidence and their evidence lacks the ring of truth and veracity and has failed to convince us.
23. ' We are also not impressed by the plea that the allegations of mala fides is an afterthought. It is true that the appellant did not raise the issue of mala fides on the part of Mr. Khar in his review petition to the President and in his Writ Petition before the High Court we can see the dilemma of the appellant in raising his voice against one of the stalwarts of the Peoples Party and that also before President of Pakistan who was also the Chairman of the Party. We are, however, impressed by the fact that much before the decision of Supreme Court dated 12th July, 1974, in the case of Saeed Ahmad Khan cited as PLD 1974 S. C. 151, the appellant in his telegram of 5th November, 1972 to the President of Pakistan clearly raised the plea of mala fides against Mr. Khar. The relevant portions of the telegram may be reproduced with advantage :- "I apprehend that the comments on my appeal under Martial Law Regulation 116 which are to be sent by the Provincial Government will not be favourable to me as I executed the warrant of arrest against Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khar now the Governor of Punjab for being defaulter of land revenue (URDU TEXT) The warrant was sent to me by Mr. Saeed Leghari the then Tehsildar, Kot Adu under the direction of Commissioner, Multan Division for execution and I being only a subordinate have to obey the orders of my superiors (2) at that time the Ayub Regime was perhaps, displeased with Mr. Khar ( URDU TEXT) After the arrest of Mr. Khar was effected the Government dues were paid and I released Mr. Khar (URDU TEXT) Due to this accidental Mishar Mr. Khar who knows I personally as I served in his Tehsil for three years became annoyed with me and this turned to me the cause of my premature retirement under Martial Law Regulation 114 (URDU TEXT) ,, The upshot of the above discussion is that in our view the allegations of mala fides have been fully brought home by the appellant. Resultantly we quash the impugned order or his retirement dated 18th March, 1972 and direct that he will be deemed to have continued in service.
24. ' Since the order is vitiated due to mala fides and is a nullity in the eyes of law, therefore, the other issues do not arise in this case and we do not express any opinion on the same. We also direct that the appellant will have his costs from the Respondent Government which is fixed at Rs, 100.