' The petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 2 contested election to the seats reserved for peasant (female) in U.C. 20, Sialkot. The petitioner was declared returned. Respondent No, I filed an election petition to challenge the election of the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Election Tribunal on 3-12-2001.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had proved herself to be a peasant. Further contends that even if it is not so, it was not necessary for the petitioner to be a peasant herself to be eligible to contest election to die said reserved seat.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record appended with this writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel. Annexure "G" is the declaration of assests filed by the petitioner alongwith her nomination papers. According to this document, the petitioner invested in a filing station an amount of Rs,11,62,175. She is owner of a plot in Model Town Gujranwala, of the value of Rs,2,00,000.
Another plot owned by her is of value of Rs,1,55,000. Now the petitioner holding the said assets states she is dependent for her subsistence on the cultivation of 8 Kanals of land not only this but it has been proved on record that said 8 Kanals of land was purchased by her for a consideration of Rs,80,000 vide Mutation No,2820 (Annexure "N") and entered on 19-2-2001. The election was held on 21-3-2001. It is but apparent that the nomination -papers must have been filed by her somewhere in the early March, 2001. Thus, it is only a few days before the said nomination papers she purchased the land. Thus, apart from the plethora of other evidence on record, the said established rather admitted facts do go to support the judgment of the learned Tribunal that she is not a peasant and certainly not one defined in section 2(10) of P.L.G.E.O., 2000.
4. Coming to the said second contention rather alternate contention of the learned counsel he refers to section 8 of the P.L.G.E.O., 2000 which defines the constitution of Union Council. According to the learned counsel so far as the female are concerned it shall be deemed that any woman can contest election to the said seat to represent the peasants and workers. I may reproduce the relevant portion of the said provision of law which is as follows:-- "8. Union Council.---There shall be twenty-one members of a Union Council as follows:--
(b) six seats reserved for peasants and workers including two seats for women to represent peasants and workers."
' It will thus be seen that section 8 lays down that there will be 21 Members of a Union Council and six of them are to be peasants and workers. The said contention of the learned counsel lose sight of section 10(1) of the said Ordinance which lays down that Members of a Union Council are to be elected through election based on adult franchise on the basis of separate electorate. The said Ordinance also defines a peasant as also a worker. The separate electorate is with reference to minority thus, the electorate for the purpose of election to any of the seats described in section 8 and particularly the said seats reserved for peasants and workers, except the minority community is the same. If the said argument df the learned counsel is prevailed then the very purpose of law in reserving the said seats for the said class of the citizens shall fall to ground. I am not at all inclined to agree with the learned counsel.
5. Learned counsel then tried to argue that a notice within the meaning of rule 71 of the P.L.G.E.O., 2000 had not been served. I find that notice (Annexure "L") was served. The postal receipts are at Annexure "M". There is no allegation that the addresses mentioned in the postal receipts are incorrect. This being so it shall be presumed that the notices sent under the said registered cover reached the destination? Learned counsel then argued that notice is dated 24-4-2001 and on the same date the election petition was filed. To my mind, nothing turns on the said contention for the reasons that there is no direction in the said rule 71 that notice had to precede the filing of the election petition: Rule 71 simply states that each of the respondents shall be served by registered post A.D. Alongwith copy of the petition.
6. No other point has been urged. This writ petition is dismissed in limine.