' A common question of law and fact is involved in Writ Petition No,4146 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,4197 of 1995, I propose to dispose of these two by this common judgment.
2. The defunct National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. Moved applications on 18- 9-1991 under Punjab Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans)
Ordinance, 1966 against the respondents in Writ Petition No,4146 of 1995 for recovery of Rs,2,37,11,137.58 including interest/mark-up up to 30-6-1991 and for recovery of Rs,2,34,87,342.60 against respondents in Writ Petition No,4147 of 1995. The abovesaid recovery proceedings were contested by the respondents. The Deputy Registrar Cooperatives Lahore Division, Lahore with powers of Registrar gave his award against the respondents on 19-12-1992 for the respective claimed amounts along with the interest/mark-up up to 30-6-1991.
' The respondents preferred appeals before the Secretary Cooperative Government of Punjab, who passed the following orders on 20-1-1994:-- "(1) Accounts shall be reconciled by the appellant with the Liquidation Board during the next 15 days i,e, by February 2, 1994.
(2) Obviously and logically, the Liquidation Board will first determine the original loan amount and then proceed with the accounts/balance sheet with the said undesirable society of the defaulters.
(3) The interest on the principal amount shall be calculated on simple interest basis.
(4) Interest shall be calculated till the date of the closure of the said Undesirable Cooperative Society.
(5) Rate of the interest shall be according to the contract signed between the parties."
' Both the appeals were disposed of by the Secretary Cooperatives vide order, dated 17-2-1994 with the observation that all cases of recovery of Rs, 1 million and above should be filed before the learned Cooperative Judge, Islamabad in consultation with Member (Legal).
' The Member (Legal and the Legal Advisor submitted a scheme to the learned Cooperative Judge on 24-2-1994, which was approved the same day. The respondents made an application on 27-9- 1994 to the Secretary Cooperative for revival of the appeal disposed of earlier vide order dated 17- 2-1994. The respondent No,2 recalled the order dated 17-2-1994 vide order, dated 9-10-1994 and proceeded with the same on merits Finally the Secretary, Cooperative/respondent No,2 after hearing the parties allowed the appeals of the respondents vide order, dated 29-11-1994. A direction was issued that:- "15 % interest/mark-up per annum with monthly rests should be applied to Demand Loan Account while 15% simple interest/mark-up should be applied to Account No,636 and experienced well reputed Chartered Accountants i,e, S.M. Masdood & Co. And Aslam & Co. Being on the approved list of the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies be hired by the Deputy Registrar and account sheets should be recast on the basis of correct calculation."
' The orders, dated 9-10-1994 (recalling the earlier order dated 7-2-1994) and the order, dated 29- 11-1994 finally disposed of the appeals are assailed in this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Secretary Cooperatives had disposed of the appeals on 17-2-1994, the said order was not challenged before the higher forum as such the award dated 19-12-1992 attained finality. The Secretary/respondent No,2 had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the appeals. The Awards announced by the Deputy Registrar had been confirmed by the Honourable Cooperative Judge as such could not be modified by the Secretary Cooperatives. The recall order dated 9-10-1994 and the final impugned order were void. He further argued that there was no justification whatsoever for disallowing the interest in terms of the Demand Promissory Note dated 6-2-1974.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Cooperative Judge held that he was only the Executing Authority, whereas, the competent forum for hearing the appeals was the Secretary Cooperatives. The respondents cannot be left remediless. The factual controversy having already been resolved by four Chartered Accountants, the same could not be assailed and re-investigation could not be made by this Court.
4. I have gone through the impugned orders, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd.
(NICFC) made an application under Punjab Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 against the respondents. On the establishment of Punjab Cooperative Board of Liquidation (PCBL) under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992, the aforementioned Board filed an application for converting the proceedings already pending under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1996 into proceedings under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 which was accordingly allowed. The Deputy Registrar announced his awards on 19-12-1992. The said Awards were challenged by the respondents before the Secretary Cooperative Government of Punjab who directed the PCBL vide order dated 20-1-1994 to reconcile the accounts of the respondents within 15 days by determining the original loan amounts and the interest up to the date of the closure of the Undesirable Societies at the rate agreed between the parties as per terms of the contract of loans. During the pendency of the appeal the Liquidation Board chose to refer the matter to the Honourable Cooperative Judge and the appeal of the respondents was disposed of vide order, dated 17-2-1994 by the Secretary Cooperative with a direction to approach the Honourable Cooperative Judge. The Honourable Cooperative Judge in Miscellaneous Petition No,23-C of 1993 in Petition No,123/C of 1993 came to the conclusion that no appeal lay to him against an award and that there was nothing in the Act of 1993 barring the Secretary, Cooperative, Government of Punjab from hearing appeals. The following observation was made:-- "Section 7(v) of the Act of 1993 confers jurisdiction on the Cooperative Judge to proceed with the execution for recovery of loans, advances by the Undesirable Societies or for execution of any decree or award in favour of such a society at any stage of the proceedings. This provision cannot be stretched so as to read as a provision conferring jurisdiction on the Cooperative Judge to hear appeal."
' As a consequence of the judgment of the Honourable Cooperative Judge the Secretary Cooperative recalled his order , dated 17-2-1994 vide order, dated 9-10-1994 and vide order, dated 29-11-1994 directed the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies to modify the awards. Now the question to be considered is whether the Secretary Cooperatives had the jurisdiction to hear the appeals. After the creation of Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation in July, 1992 it made an application for conversion of the proceedings pending under Punjab Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 into proceedings under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. It was accordingly allowed. There is nothing in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 ousting the jurisdiction of the Secretary, Cooperatives to hear appeals against the awards under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Section 7(v) of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 reads as under:-- "refer a case, for a recovery of a loan advanced by an Undesirable Cooperative Society or for the execution of a decree, order or award passed in favour of such a Society, at any stage of its proceedings to the Cooperatives Judge who may dispose it of or otherwise deal with it in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed and until the procedure is prescribed as may be determined by the Cooperatives Judge."
The bare reading of the aforementioned subsection reveals that the Board may refer a case for the execution of any decree, order or Award passed in favour of an Undesirable Society to the Cooperatives Judge who may dispose it of or otherwise deal with it in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. By no stretch of imagination can this provision be stretched to conferring power on the Honourable Cooperatives Judge to hear appeal against the award given by the Registrar. Section 11 of the same Act states that a person aggrieved of an act or decision of the Cooperative Board may apply to the Cooperative Judge, who may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained against and make such order as he may think just in the circumstances of the case. The Honourable Cooperative Judge can be approached against the act or decision of the Cooperative Board and not against the award of the Registrar. Section 17 of the same Act provided exclusive jurisdiction to the Cooperative Judge. The same is reproduced as under:-- "Exclusive jurisdiction of Cooperatives Judge.-- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which a Cooperative Board and the Cooperative Judge are empowered by or under this Ordinance to determine and no injunction or process or order shall be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act."
The jurisdiction of all other Courts is ousted in respect of matter which a IC Cooperative Board and the Cooperative Judge is empowered by or under this Ordinance to determine. It nowhere confers the jurisdiction upon the Cooperatives Judge to hear the appeals against the Award pronounced by the Arbitrator. It is settled axiom that appeal is a creation of the statute, a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure. A right of appeal from any decision of any Tribunal must be given by express enactment. See Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1; In the case of I.C.I. Pakistan Limited v. Salahuddin and others PLD 1991 SC 15 it was observed as under:-- "It is trite law that right of appeal is a creation of statute. If it does not confer, none has it. Invasive provisions over the rights of citizens have to be construed strictly. This is axiomatic."
' The above principle was reiterated in Pakistan through Military Estate Officer, Kharian Cantt. And another v. Abdul Hayee Khan through Legal Heirs and 5 others PLD 1995 SC 418.
After reading the aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1993 and the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 it can be safely inferred that the jurisdiction of the Secretary, Cooperatives to hear appeals under section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is still intact.
The order of the Secretary Cooperatives dated 9-10-1994 resuscitating the appeals is unexceptionable. I find no fallacy in it and uphold the same.
' I also do not find any infirmity in the order, dated 29-10-1994 determining the rate of interest as 15%. The interest chargeable on the Promissory Note is 15% per annum with monthly rests. However, the contract regarding the payment of interest on Accounts Nos.880 and 636 is silent. The Secretary had directed to charge the rate of interest as given in the Promissory Note but without monthly rests. The order is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Even otherwise compound interest cannot be charged. Rest of the matter pertains to calculations to be made by Chartered Accountant, no indulgence is called for.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in these petitions and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.