' 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 are 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 A 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.