MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---The instant petition (W.P.No,331/2018) and W.P.No,332/2018 were allowed through a short order of even date. The said short order reads as under:-.
"For reasons to be recorded later, the instant petition (W.P.No,331/2018) and W.P.No,332/2018 are allowed. As a consequence, it is directed that the names of respondent No,1 in both the petitions, that is to say Muhammad Mehmood and Ch. Tariq Mehmood, be deleted from the list of validly nominated candidates for election to the reserved seat of "Peasant" for UC-81, Kotha Kalan-II, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi.
There is no order as to costs."
The following are the reasons for the said short order .
2. Through this single order it is proposed to decide the instant petition (W.P.No,3 31/2018) and W.P.No,332/2018 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
3. The petitions are directed against the orders, dated 16.01.2018, passed by the Returning Officer of Union Council-81, Kotha Kalan-II, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi (respondent No,3) and the judgments, dated 23.01.2018, passed by the Additional District Judge/A ppellate Authority (respondent No,41 whereby the nomination papers of Muhammad Mehmood (respondent No,1 in W.P.No,331/2018 and hereinafter referred to as respondent No,1-A) and Chaudhry Tariq Mehmood (respondent No,1 in W.P.No,332/2018 and hereinafter referred to as respondent No, I-B) to -contest the election of the reserved seat of Peasant member of the said Union Council-81 (UC-81), have been accepted.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-Election Commission of Pakistan (the ECP) has challenged the maintainability of the petitions by submitting that the petitioner (in both the petitions) does not have the locus standi to file the petitions. Submits that the petitioner is admittedly a general voter of UC-81. However , the election in question is being held for the reserved seat of a Peasant member in UC-81. Further submits that as per the scheme of Chapter-V of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 (the Rules), read with Section 13 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (the Act), the voters (electoral college) for the reserved seat of a Peasant member in a Union Council are, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the general members elected to the Union Council. Refers to Rule 41 of the Rules to submit that the list of elect ed members of a Union Council eligible to vote and constituting the electoral college for the election of the members to reserved seats is to be provided by the Election Commission of Pakistan. In the instant case, the list of the elected members of UC-81 was notified on 06.04.2017. A certified copy whereof has been appended to the instant petition as Annexure-J. A perusal of the list shows that the petitioner is not one of the elected/returned members. Contends that in view thereof, the petitioner is not a voter for the election to the reserved seat of a Peasant member in UC-81. The petitioner , therefore, cannot raise the objections regarding the candidature of respondents No,1-A and 1-B.
5. The learned Assistant Attorney-General whilst adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent- ECP submits that as per Rule 42 of the Rules, only a member of the electoral college may propose or second the name of a person to contest the election to a reserved seat. Submits that the electoral college in the instant case, under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, is the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the general elected members of UC-81. It, therefore, follows that the objector , if any, to the candidature of a person contesting the election to one of the reserved seats has to be from within the electoral college. The petitioner is admittedly only a general voter from UC-81 and is not a member of the electoral college. Hence, he does not have the locus standi to bring the petition.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-ECP and submits that the petitions are liable to he dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-ECP and the learned Law Of ficers of the Federation and the Province.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to bring the petition is misconceived. Refers to Rule 14 of the Rules to submit that any voter of the constituency , can raise objections regarding the candidature of a candidate, who is contesting the election to the Union Council whether on general or reserved seats.
9. To better appreciate the contentions of the learned Law Officers and the learned counsel for the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of Rule 14, which forms part of Chapter IV of the Rules and the relevant provisions of Rules 40 to 46. which form part of Chapter V of the Rules:- "14. Scrutiny .- (1) The scrutiny of nomination papers shall be open to the candidates, their election agents, proposers and seconders, or the persons who made objections against the nomination papers, and any voter of the constituency with the permission of the Returning Officer , before the commenc ement of the scrutiny , and the Returning Officer shall give all those present reasonable opportunity for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under rule 12.
(2) The Returning Officer shall, in the presence of the persons attending the scrutiny under sub-rule(1), examine the nomination papers and decide an objection raised by any such person to a nomination.
(3) The Returning Officer may, either on his own accord or on an objection. conduct such summary inquiry as he may think fit and reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that:-
(a) the candidate is not qualified to be elected as a Member , a Chairman and a Vice Chairman, or a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor:
(b) the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper;
(c) any provision of rule 12 or rule 13 has not been complied with; or
(d) the signature or thumb impression of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine.
(4) ____________________
(5) ____________________
(6) ____________________
(7) The Returning Officer shall not reject a nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature and may allow such defect to be remedied forthwith, including an error with regard to the name, serial number in the electoral roll or other particulars of the candidate or his proposer or seconder so as to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls.
(8) ____________________
(9) ____________________
(10) An appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or accepting the nomination paper of the candidate(s) may be preferred by any person present at the time of scrutiny under sub-rule(1) to the appellate authority , who shall be the District and Sessions Judge or any other judicial officer , appointed for the purpose by the Election Commission.
(11) ____________________
(12) ____________________ "40. Election against reserved seats. -(1) Subject to the rules, the Election Commission shall organise and conduct the elections to the seats reserved for women, peasants or workers, technocrats, youth and non-Muslims in Metropolitan Corporation, Municipal Corporations and District Councils, and election to the seats reserved for women, peasants or workers, youth and non-Muslims in the Municipal Committees and Union Councils.
(2) For the conduct of elections under this Chapter , the provisions of Chapter IV in so far as, are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter shall, as far as possible, apply .
(3) A contesting candidate or candidates obtaining the highest number of votes in a category shall be declared as elected against the seat or seats specific for that category .
41. List of voters.- The list of elected members eligible to vote and constituting an electoral college for the election of the members under this Chapter shall be provided to the Returning Officer by the Election Commission.
42. Election schedule.- As soon as the electoral college for purposes of election under this Chapter is constituted, the Election Commission shall notify in the official Gazette, Election Schedule for election to fill the seats reserved for women, peasants or workers, technocrats, youth and non-Muslims in Metropolitan Corporation, Municipal Corporations and District Councils, and for elections to fill the seats reserved for women, peasants or workers, youth and non-Muslims in Municipal Committees and the Union Councils and shall call upon:-
(a) the directly elected members from the wards of a Municipal Committee to elect members against reserved seats of the Municipal Committee.
(b) the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen and general members of a Union Council to elect members against reserved seats of the Union Council; and
(c) the Chairmen of the Union Councils to elect members against reserved seats of the District Councils, Municipal Corporations and Metropolitan Corporation.
43. Nomination for election.-(1) A member of an electoral college may propose or second the name of any person who is registered voter of any electoral area forming part of the respective local government to be a candidate for the election under this Chapter .
(2) Any member of an electoral college may propose or second the nominations in more than one category but not more than one nomination in the same category of reserved seats.
44. Ballot Paper . ____________________
45. Polling Scheme. ____________________
46. Declaration of result. ____________________"
10. The learned counsel for the respondent-ECP, the learned Law Officers for the Federation and the Province and the learned counsel for respondent No,1 have based their entire arguments on the interpretation of Rules 40 to 43 to contend that since the petitioner is neither the Chairman nor the Vice-Chairman nor a general member of UC-81, therefore, he is not part of the electoral college for the election to the seat of a Peasant member and thus not eligible to raise any objection regarding the candidature of either respondent No,1-A or respondent No,1-B to the said seat. It has been further contended that the electoral college for election to the reserved seats of a Union Council consists only of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the general members of a Union Council, therefore, any objector has to be from the electoral college. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has relied upon the provisions of Rule 14(1) to submit that any voter from within the constituency, that is to say, the Union Council can object to the candidature of a candidate to any one of the reserved seats.
11. I have examined the provisions reproduced hereinabove and have also conside red the arguments addressed at the bar. I find that in addition to the points raised during the course of arguments there is another point involved in the matter . It is observed that Rule 40(1) envisages that, subject to the provisions of the Rules, the Election Commission of Pakistan shall organize and conduct the elections to the reserved seats of Local Governments.
Rule 40(2) states that in the conduct of elections to the reserved seats under Chapter V of the Rules, the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules, which includ es Rule 14, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter V of the Rules, shall as far as possible apply . In other words the procedure provided for scrutiny of nomination papers, in Rule 14, shall also apply to the elections to the reserved seats as long as the provisions of Rule 14 are not inconsistent with Rules, 40 to 46.
12. I have examined the provisions of Rule 14 in juxtaposition with the Rules forming part of Chapter V, that is to say, Rules 40 to 46. To my mind the provisions of Rule 14 are not inconsistent with the provisions of Rules 40 to 46, therefore, the provisions of Rule 14 shall A apply to an election to the reserved seats of a Union Council, mutatis mutandis.
13. A perusal of Rule 14(1) shows that the scrutiny of nomination papers is to be open to the candidates, their election agents, proposers and seconders, "or the persons who made objections against the nomination papers , and any voter of the constituency with the permission of the Returning Officer, before the commencement of the scrutiny ...". The Returning Officer is additionally required to afford a reasonable opportunity to the said persons for examining all nomination papers delivered to him under Rule 12.
14. Rule 14(2) envisages that the Returning Officer shall examine/scrutinize the nomination papers in presence of the persons who attend the process of scrutiny under Rule 14(1) and shall decide any objection raised in respect of a nomination paper .
15. Rule 14(3) provides that a Returning Officer either on his own motion or on an objection may conduct a summary inquiry , as he thinks fit, and reject a nomination paper if he is satisfied that the candidate is not qualified to be elected to the seat in question or the proposer or the seconder is not qualified to subscribe to the nomination paper or any provision of Rules 12 and 13 has not been complied with or the signature or thumb impression of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine.
16. Rule 14(4) provides that an appeal against the decision of a Returning Officer rejecting or accepting the nomination paper of a candidate can be filed by any person present at the time of scrutiny under Rule 14(1) , to the prescribed appellate Authority .
17. As will be clear , the provisions of Rule 14 allow any person to raise objections regarding the candidature of a candidate even if that person is not a voter of the constituency .
18. More importantly , the said objector has also been given the remedy of an appeal against the acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper of the candidate in question. Rule 14(4) refers.
19. The argument has been raised that the word "constituency" as used in Rule 14(1) in respect of the election to the reserved seats of a Union Council only means the electoral college for the reserved seats as defined in Rule 41 and not the over all constituency of the Union Council.
20. To my mind the said argument is misconceived as not only does it narrows the definition of the term "constituency" but it is also inconsistent with the provisions of Rule 43, which envisages that any member of the electoral college, as defined in Rule 41, may propose or second the name of any person, who is a registered voter of any electoral area/constituency forming part of the respective local government, to take part in the election for the reserved seats of the local government.
21. It, therefore, follows that any registered voter of any electoral area forming part of a local government can be a candidate for the election to the reserved seats of the local government, in question provided the candidate has been proposed and seconded by membe rs of the electoral college. Rules 41 and 43 refer. The candidature of any such candidate can be challenged under Rule 14(1) by any contesting candidate, his election agent, proposer and seconder or any person who has raised an objection against the candidate's nomination paper and any voter of the constituency , with permission of the Returning Officer, before commencement of the scrutiny . The objection so raised is to be decided by the Returning Officer in the manner mentioned hereinabove (and is, therefore, not being reproduced for the sake of brevity), moreover , the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or accepting the nomination paper of any such candidate can be challenged by way of an appeal by any person present at the time of scrutiny , in terms of 14(1), before the designated appellate authority .
22. In the instant case, the petitioner is a registered voter of the constituency in question, that is to say, UC-81. The petitioner raised objections at the time of scrutiny of respondents Nos,1-A and 1-B's nomination papers. And upon acceptance of their nomination papers the petitioner filed appeals, which have been dismissed by respondent No,4, through the impugned judgments.
23. In view of the above mentioned legal and factual position, I hold that the petitio ner had the locus standi to raise the objections before the Returning Officer and to file the appeal against the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondents Nos,1-A and 1-B. He, therefore, also has the locus standi to file the petitions.
24. Now coming to the merits of the petitions, it is observed that whilst discussing the significance and importance of giving special representation to certain categories of persons, including peasants, in local governments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Ali Muhammad Marri v. Province of Sindh and others" (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 258), has inter alia held as under: "9. Elections are contested on the basis of adult franchise however reserved seats have been introduced to enable certain categories of persons who may not otherwise be able to compete fairly, including women, peasants, workers and non-Muslims. The Constitution provides that the State shall ensure that, "special representation will be given to peasants, workers and women" in local government institutions (Article 32) and that "steps shall be taken to ensure full participation of women in all spheres of national life" (Article 34). The Constitution also requires the State to "safeguard the legitimate rights and interest of minorities" (Article 36). Socially and/or economically deprived and/or discriminated sectors of society (non-Muslims, women, peasants and workers) are specifically mentioned in the Constitution to enable them to overcome the discriminatory and traditional barriers that prevent their due representation in elected bodies. The 'equality of citizens' enshrined as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution (Article 25) may also remain elusive if equality of opportunity is not provided to all. Reserved seats can therefore be categorized as a form of compensatory justice aimed at alleviating deprivations, not at the cost of others but to create a level playing field. The framers of the Constitution in their wisdom inserted these provisions in the Constitution to weed out bias, prejudice, discrimination, unfairness and to attain a just society .
10. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution to protect and promote the interest of the above mentioned categories of persons laws, such as the Act, have been promulgated. Every effort must therefore be made to ensure that the provisions of the Constitution and the Act do not fall prey to machinations. If a person falsely projects himself to belong to a weak, vulnerable or underrepresented class, and captures a sect reserved for such persons he deprives those that the law had sought to protect and promote. The reserved seat for a labourer/peasant is meant to secure the representation of a downtrodden and deprived segment of society , to have their voice heard, to encourage their participation in decision making that affects them and help alleviate their suffering."
25. As will be clear , a duty is cast upon the candidates contesting elections to the reserved seats of a local government to abide by the provisions of the Constitution, the Act and the Rules so that only those candidates are elected to the reserved seats, who actually qualify to be elected to the reserved seats, without being mala fide knocked out by candidates, who do not qualify to contest the elections to the reserv ed seats of a local government.
I, therefore, propose to consider the merits of the petitions on the touchstone of the above judgment.
26. In respect of the candidature of respo ndents Nos,1-A and 1-B, the petitioner has raised the main objection that they do not fall within the definition of "peasant" as defined by Section 2(ii) of the Act. To better appreciate the proposition, it would be advantageous to reproduce section 2(ii) hereinbelow:- "2(ii) 'peasant' means a person who is a landless farm worker or, one who during the period of five years preceding the year in which the election is held, has been the owner of not more than five acres of land and depends directly on it for subsistence living; "
27. In respect of respondent No,1-A, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,1-A has retired from the service of the Attock Refinery Limited, Morgah, Rawalpindi, as a Pump Man. He receives pension from the Refinery and has not disclosed this fact. He is not a farmer nor is he dependent on the income derived from his limited landholding. In other words, he does not depend directly on income derived from his land for subsistence living.
28. Further submits that respondent No,1-A has misstated and/or has concealed his assets whilst giving the statement of assets and liabilities in his nomination paper . Submits that besides the bank account mentioned by respondent No,1-A in his nomination paper he maintains another bank account bearing No,05980005781501, in his name, in the Habib Bank Limited, Morgah Branch, Rawalpindi. The balance in the said account is Rs,700,000/-.
Refers to C.M.No,150/2018 filed by the petitioner in this respect. Prays that the contents thereof may be read as an integral part of W .P.No,331/2018.
29. Further submits that although respon dent No,1-A has mentioned one bank account in his nomination paper , however , respondent No,1-A has not given the name of the branch of the bank in question. Further refers to Annexure-E to the petition, which is an electricity bill, issued by the IESCO, in the name of respondent No,1-A.
Submits that in his nomination paper , respondent No,1-A has claimed to be the owner of 2 Kanals 13 Marlas of agricultural land. Respondent No,1-A, has, however , not given the particulars of the property wherein the said electricity connection has been installed in his name. Contends that respondent No,1 has, therefore, not only concealed his assets but has also made a misstatement in respect thereof. His candidature is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
30. The learned counsel for respondent No,1-A seeks time to confer with respondent No,1-A as to the allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner . Time has accordingly been granted and the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court has also been directed to enquire from Habib Bank Limited and the IESCO as to the veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No,1-A.
31. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) reports that the account in question is being maintained by respondent No,1-A with the Habib Bank Limited, Morgah Branch, Rawalpindi. The account was opened on 09.11.1981. The current balance in the account is Rs,32,859.24. Further submits that the IESCO has confirmed that there is an electricity connection bearing Reference No,03143360612900 -R in the name of respond ent No,1-A. The said electricity connection is commercial in nature.
32. The learned counsel for respondent No,1-A submits, under instructions, that respondent No,1 does have the afore-referred bank account in addition to the bank account mentioned in the nomination paper . Further submits that the bank account in question is quite old and dormant. Respondent No,1-A had forgotten about the said account, therefore, he did not mention it in his nomination paper . Contends that it is a curable defect and can be rectified under Rule 14(7) of the Rules. As to the electricity connection submits that the electricity bill is not a document of title, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it.
33. Respondent No,1-A, who is present in person, has admitted that the electricity connection exists in his name and has been obtained by him for a shop. He also admits to receiving pension from the Attock Refinery Limited.
When asked as to why he did not mention the existence of the shop or the running thereof and the receipt of pension in his nomination paper , he has nothing to say .
34. In view of the statement of respondent No,1-A, it is evident that he owns or runs a shop. This fact coupled with the fact that respondent 1-A also receives pension from the Attock Refinery Limited goes to establish that respondent No,1-A is not directly dependent on his agricultural income, if any, for subsistence living. It, therefore, follows that respondent No,1-A cannot be deemed to be a "peasant" as defined in Section 2(ii), ibid.
35. It is further observed that, in his nomination paper , respondent No,1-A has also not mentioned the existence of a second bank account, albeit the balance thereof, as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No,1-A, is very small and/or the account is dormant. However , the non mentioning of the shop, the account and receipt of pension from the Attock Refinery Limited in his nomination paper by respondent No,1-A amounts to non- disclosure/concealment and/or mis-declaration of assets. The said non-disclosure/concealment/mis-declaration cannot be termed to be insignificant. Indeed, it is a defect, which is of a substantial nature and cannot be cured under Rule 14(7). The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No,1-A, in respect of Rule 14(7), is accordingly repelled.
36. I further find that respondent No,1-A has violated the solemn affirmation made by him under Rule 12(3), in his nomination paper .
37. When the above facts/factors are considered in totality , one cannot help but come to the conclusion that respondent No,1-A does not qualify to contest the election to the reserved seat of the Peasant member of UC-81.
38. W.P.No,331/2018 is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the name of respondent No,1-A (Muhammad Mehmood) be deleted from the list of validly nominated candidates for election to the reserved seat of Peasant member of UC-81.
39. In respect of the candidature of respondent No,1-B, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,1-B does not fall within the definition of a peasant as envisaged by section 2(ii) of the Act. Contends that respondent No,1-B is not dependent on agricultural income. Further submits that on his own showing respondent No,1-B is a man of means. Refers to respondent No,1-B's nomination paper wherein the assets shown by respondent No,1-B are in excess of Rs,4-Crores. Relies on the judgment reported as "Ch. Sultan Mahmood v.
Appellate Authority/ADJ and 2 others" (2017 MLD 948) to contend that where a person is a man of means he cannot be termed to be a peasant as defined in the Act through Section 2(ii).
40. Further submits that respondent No,1-B has concealed the factum that he owns property other than the one mentioned by him in his nomination paper . Contends that respondent No,1-B also owns a residential property which he has failed to mention in his nomination paper . Refers to Annexures-G and H to the petition, which are electricity bills in the name of respondent No,1-B in respect of two separate premises.
41. The learned counsel for respondent No,1-B disputes the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioner .
Submits that the electricity bills are not documents of title, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No,1-B owns any property . Refers to the nomination paper of respondent No,1-B and submits that respondent No,1-B owns inherited agricultural land. The value thereof has increased with the passage of time but respondent No,1-B does not derive any substantial income from cultivating the said piece of land.
42. I have gone through the original record and find that along with his nomination paper , respondent No,1-B has also appended certified copies of the revenue record. Part of the property/land mentioned in the revenue record was obtained by respondent No,1-B through purchase.
43. When confronted with the above the learned counsel for respondent No,1-B and respondent No,1-B, present in person, submit that the sum total of respo ndent No,1-B's land, by way of measurement, as given in his nomination paper and the revenue record is the same. Respondent No,1-B through an inadvertent omission did not mention that part of the said land was purchased by him. He has only referred to the land as being inherited land.
44. Further submits that the afore-referre d discrepancies are the result of inadvertent omissions, which are not substantial in nature. The said omissions are, therefore, curable under the provisions of Rule 14(7) of the Rules.
45. On Court's query , respondent No,1-B has submitted in vague terms that the land mentioned in his nomination paper is split into two different parcels. He, however , has submitted that the elect ricity connections referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been installed in residential premises. Admits that both the electricity connections are in his name.
46. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also of the learned counsel for respondent No,1-B and the statement made by respondent No,1-B, I am afraid I am unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No,1-B, that the omission by respondent No,1-B, to mention that one part of the land mentioned in his nomination paper was inherited whereas the other part of the land mentioned in his nomination paper was bought by him, is curable under the provisions of Rule 14(7). The reason therefor is the fact that Rule 14(7) empowers the Returning Officer to correct defects in the nomination paper , which are not substantial in nature. The failure of respondent No,1-B to mention that, he, besides owning inherited land also owns land bought by him, moreover , and more importantly , he also owns residential property cannot be deemed to be an omission/defect, which is not substantial in nature and, therefore, can be cured under Rule 14(7). In fact respondent No,1-B has concealed the above facts. Moreover , he has also not mentioned the value of his residential property .
47. In view of the above, respondent No,1-B cannot be deemed to be wholly and solely dependent on the income of his limited landholding, if any, for subsistence living. He, therefore, cannot be deemed to be a "peasant" as defined in Section 2(ii) of the Act.
48. I also hold that respondent No,1-B has concealed his assets and/or has mis-declared his assets in his nomination paper . It is further held that respondent No,1-B has violated the solemn affirmation made by him under Rule 12(3) in his nomination paper .
Respondent No,1-B, therefore, does not qualify to contest the election to the reserved seat of a Peasant member of UC-81. It is accordingly directed that the name of respondent No,1-B be deleted from the list of validly nominated candidates contesting the election for the reserved seat of a Peasant member in UC-81.
50. Under the circumstances, the instant petition (W.P.No,331/2018) and W.P.No,332/2018 are allowed. As a consequence, it is directed that the names of respondent No, 1 in both the petitions, that is to say, Muhammad Mehmood and Ch. Tariq Mehmood, be deleted from the list of validly nominated candidates for election to the reserved seat of "Peasant" for UC-81, Kotha Kalan-II, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi.
There is no order as to costs.