KISAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT CORPORATION LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

The petitioner M/s. Kisan Cooperative Credit Corporation Limited has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned order dated 15‑7‑1986 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the order dated 3‑11‑1986 passed by the Secretary Agriculture- cum‑Cooperatives may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. It was further prayed that a direction be issued that the petitioner Corporation be registered in accordance with the order dated 1‑7‑1986 passed by Mr. Javed Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department, Government of the Punjab.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the application of the petitioner for its registration as a Society under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, was entertained by the Registrar Cooperative Societies respondent No. 2 after obtaining the necessary information and conducting an inquiry at the District as well as at the Divisional level about the status and financial position of the members of the petitioner Society. On 30‑4‑1986 (Annexure 'A') the Joint Registrar with the delegated powers of the Registrar Cooperative Societies refused to register the petitioner as a Society on the grounds that the persons residing outside Sargodha Division cannot be members of the Corporation, rules cannot allow classification of members into categories 'A' and 'B' and lastly that the aims and objects of the petitioner Society appeared to be banking and the said function could not be allowed to be done under the law. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid refusal of registration as a Society went in appeal under section 64‑A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which was heard by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department Government of the Punjab. The Secretary after hearing the parties and perusing the record, accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 1‑7‑1986 and issued directions to the Registrar for the registration of the petitioner Society after removing the lacuna mentioned therein in the order. The above‑referred order has been placed on file as Annexure 'B'. Consequently, the refusal order of the Registrar was set aside. The petitioner duly armed with the above‑referred appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority in the case, held a meeting on 3‑7‑1986, and decided to delete four members from Lahore out of 30 members originally given in the list. Thus, the total strength of the membership was brought to 26, whereas was the minimum required strength of the membership in law. In accordance with the direction of the Appellate Authority classification of members into 'A' and 'B' categories was also done away with by the petitioner. Again, the case was taken up by the Registrar Cooperative Societies after the decision of the Appellate Authority. It was pointed out to the Registrar that the decision of the Government on the appeal of the petitioner is final and that the lacuna mentioned in the appellate order has been removed therefrom and as such, the petitioner Society be registered under the law. However, the Registrar on 15‑7‑1986 (Annexure 'D') refused to register the petitioner Society in obedience to the decision of the Government and reviewed his earlier order dated 30‑4‑1986 and reopened the entire case afresh. The petitioner went in further appeal against the order of Registrar dated 15‑7‑1986 before the Provincial Government which was heard and dismissed by Dr. Zafar Altaf, Secretary Cooperative Department, Government of the Punjab, on 3‑11‑1986 (Annexure 'F'). The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.5255/86 which was fixed before Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial. However, the Registrar gave an assurance in the High Court that the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. On the basis of the assurance the petitioner withdrew the above‑said writ petition which was disposed of as having been withdrawn on 21‑12‑1986. Despite the assurance given by the respondent, the petitioner was not registered in accordance with law in the light of the decision arrived at by the Provincial Government. Thus, the petitioner was compelled under the above‑referred facts and circumstances of the case to approach the High Court again praying for the registration of the petitioner as a Society.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar Cooperative Societies being a subordinate functionary, was under law bound to strictly comply with the appellate order passed by Mr. Javed Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department, Government of the Punjab, vide his order dated 1‑7‑1986. Learned counsel submitted that the appeal of the petitioner was heard at length by the Provincial Government and all the possible objections were taken by the respondent before the Provincial Government and those objections were specifically dealt with by the appellate forum. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that some objections were highlighted before the Government for their removal before the registration of the petitioner. Learned counsel maintained that the specified objections pointed out by the Provincial Government were admittedly removed by the petitioner. Learned counsel argued on these premises that after the appellate order having been passed in the case, there was no legal hitch in the registration of the petitioner under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Learned counsel maintained that the subsequent orders passed by the Registrar and the successor Secretary Cooperative Department are wholly without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel stated that the decision of the Provincial Government in the first appeal of the petitioner was admittedly not assailed by the respondent anywhere including the High Court. This being so, the order passed by the Provincial Government has attained finality. Under law, it was the bounden duty of the Registrar to have acted strictly in accordance with the directions given in the appellate order of the Provincial Government. Learned counsel also contended that under similar bye‑laws the Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Corporation Gujranwala was registered by respondent No.2 on 2‑9‑1986. On these premises, learned counsel stated that the action of respondent No.2 is based on mala fides. He further stated that the petitioner is entitled to do business of his choice and as such, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the earlier order passed by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department is an illegal order on the face of it. Learned counsel stated that the bye‑laws framed by the petitioner show that the petitioner, if registered, will indulge in banking which function is completely forbidden by law. Learned counsel stated that no finality could be attached to an illegal order passed by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi Secretary Cooperative Department in the exercise of his earlier order passed by him on the appeal of the petitioner. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner did undertake to remove the objections raised by the Registrar. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution because so far the petitioner has not been registered.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record very minutely. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioner did file an appeal under section 64‑A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which was heard and accepted by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department Government of the Punjab vide his order 1‑7‑1986 (Annexure 'B'). From the perusal of the appellate order it becomes crystal clear that all the objections now being raised by the respondent were taken up vigorously before the Secretary and were decided by him vide his order dated 1‑7‑1986. Some lacuna was found out by the appellate Tribunal and it was specifically directed that the Registrar shall register the petitioner Society after the lacuna is removed by the petitioner. It may be pointed out that the petitioner removed the concerned lacuna after the appellate order was passed on 1‑7‑1986. It was specifically observed by the Secretary Cooperative Department that the petitioner proposed Society is a commercially oriented and that commercialism and banking are two distinct activities. The Secretary also observed in his appellate order that the application for registration filed by the petitioner accompanied by necessary documents was sent to the Deputy Registrar Sargodha who examined the matter thoroughly through the field staff. Finally the said Deputy Registrar submitted his recommendation to the Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab saying that the petitioner be registered provided the members of the petitioner shown to have been residing at Lahore are deleted from the list. This objection was met by the petitioner by removing the members from Lahore from the list of the members of the petitioner society. It was specifically observed by the Provincial Government that the Registrar instead of registering the petitioner, decided to raise such objections which were not only frivolous but were also based on mere conjectures. It was further held by the Provincial Government that the bye‑laws of the petitioner do not at all show that the management will do banking. He further observed that fair and just treatment has not been given to the petitioner by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Consequently, the order of the Registrar was set aside and specific direction was issued to him to register the petitioner after the removal of the above‑referred lacuna. Admittedly the defects enumerated in the earlier order of the Provincial Government have been removed by the petitioner. In my considered view, the Registrar respondent No.2 was not at all competent to go beyond the scope of the appellate order passed by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department vide his order dated 1‑7‑1986. It is admitted before me that respondent No.2 is a subordinate functionary acting under the Secretary Cooperative Department. This being so, respondent No‑2 was duty bound to act in the matter of registration of the petitioner Society in the light of the order passed by his superior namely, Secretary Cooperative Department. At this stage the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the first order of the Secretary Cooperative Department is illegal, I am afraid, I cannot agree with him on the simple ground that he has not been able to show as to how the earlier order is illegal. Additionally, the respondent was a party before the Secretary Cooperative Department, the Appellate Authority in the case, and further no such objection was ever raised by respondent No.2 that the Secretary Cooperative Department was not competent to hear the appeal. Rather the respondent submitted the jurisdiction of the Secretary Cooperative Department and took up the matter later on for its decision certainly in accordance with the appellate order of the Secretary. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not at all competent under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to refuse to register the petitioner. His order, therefore, refusing to register the petitioner is wholly without lawful authority and without jurisdiction on the face of it. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is indulging in banking which is not permissible under law. On this point a specific finding) was given by the Secretary Cooperative Department in the first appellate order. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner] will indulge in banking. Furthermore, the bye‑laws of the petitioner were scrutinized by the appellate forum in the case and certain modifications were pointed out which had already been made by the petitioner so that there should remain no hitch whatsoever in the way of the registration of the petitioner Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under similar circumstances and under similar bye‑laws, Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Corporation, Gujranwala, was registered by the respondent No.2 on 2‑9‑1986. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as the representative of the Cooperative Department were confronted with this plea of the) petitioner and both of them frankly conceded that the said Corporation has been registered under similar bye‑laws by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. If this is so, I fail to understand as to why the Society in hand is not being registered by the Registrar. No adequate reasons justified in law have been advanced by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders passed by the Registrar respondent No.2 as well as the Secretary dated 15‑7‑1986 are declared to have been passed without lawful (authority and of no legal consequence and he is directed to act in accordance with the order passed by Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary Cooperative Department, Government of the Punjab dated 1‑7‑1986. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is allowed leaving) the parties to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H./K‑60/L Petition allowed.