SAEED AHMAD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service and cooperative matter concerning the removal of the petitioner from the membership of a Co-operative Farming Society and the subsequent allotment of land to the respondent. The core legal question involved whether the removal of the petitioner from society membership and the consequent land allotment, initially ordered upon the report of the Assistant Registrar and subsequently endorsed by the Managing Committee's resolution, violated the society's bye-laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in reviewing its earlier judgment and recalling the writ, as bye-law 10 permitted the removal of a member at the instance of the Registrar, and disturbing a long-standing possession of nineteen years would be inequitable. The key principle laid down is that action taken at the instance of the Registrar in accordance with cooperative bye-laws is valid, and equitable considerations regarding long-standing possession warrant declining discretionary constitutional remedies.
- Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Farming Societies has the authority to initiate the removal of a member who is not a self-cultivator?
- Can a writ petition succeed when a valid resolution endorsing the removal exists but was not initially produced?
- Is it fair to dislodge a party from land possession after a long lapse of nineteen years?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner had been a member of the Co--operative Farming Society by virtue of his being a lessee of 121 acres of land in Chak No. 194-E. B., Tehsil and District Vehari. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Farming Societies, reported on 30-4-1959 that the petitioner was not a self-cultivator but had given the land to sub-tenant and as such should be ejected and replaced by a suitable member. It appears that the petitioner during the harvesting of Kharif 1980 sought ejectment of his sub-tenant Ghulam Muhammad (respondent No. 1) but his plea was rejected and he was at the instance of the Assistant Registrar, vide his order dated 11-7-1961, removed from the membership of the Society. The action was endorsed by a resolution dated 20- 7-1981 passed by the Managing Committee, of the Society and Ghulam Muhammad was allotted the land and made a member of the Society. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner having failed on 19-7-1961 he filed Writ Petition No. 575 of 1961 impleading therein only the Commissioner, Co-operative Farming Societies. A written statement was put in by the Commissioner but as no one appeared at the time of the hearing, the learned Judge, impressed by the argument that the Assistant Registrar had no authority to cancel the membership in view of bye-law 10 of the Bye-laws of the Co-operative Farming Society, accepted the writ petition on 31-1- 1969 and declared his removal from membership as of no legal effect. Aggrieved, Ghulam Muhammad applied for review of the order. The application was dismissed by the High Court on 2- 4-1969 but was in the result of his appeal before the Supreme Court remanded for fresh decision.
The learned Judge found that the resolution dated 20-7-1961 did exist and had the same been produced during the hearing of the writ petition, the same could not have succeeded. He also observed that the allotment order made in favour of Ghulam Muhammad having never been challenged and he having remained in possession for the last 19 years, "it would not be fair to dislodge him after such a long time". On this view of the matter, the review was allowed and the writ issued was recalled by the impugned order dated 16-1-1982. The petitioner has now moved this petition for grant of leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner took pains to show that the removal of the petitioner had in fact taken place by order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the Committee had only formally recorded this fact. He, therefore, contended that as the removal was not by a resolution of the Committee, the same was violative of the bye-laws. The contention has no force because under bye-law 10 (the relevant portion of which is reproduced below) a member could be removed at the instance of the Registrar: The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, suffers from no illegality and as such no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed.