ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- Above numbered four constitutional petitions, involving similar controversy, were heard together and dismissed vide our short order, dated 14-11-2006. Concise relevant facts and reasons thereof read as under:--
2. The petitioners, cooperative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, have assailed the notification, dated 22-11-2000 issued by the Government of Sindh, which reads as under:-- "GOVERNMENT OF SINDH FOOD AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT ' Karachi, dated the 22nd November, 2000 NOTIFICATION No,SO(C-I)XI(i)/2000:-- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 71 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, the Government of Sindh is pleased to make the following amendments in the Sindh Cooperative societies Rules, 1927:--- Amendment ' In rule 4, after clause (a), the following new clause shall be inserted:-- "(aa)"(i) The tenure of office of the Managing Committee of a Society shall be two years;
(ii) the quorum for annual general meeting/general meeting for holding elections shall be 40% of the total membership of the Society;
(iii) the Managing Committees shall arrange holding of elections before the date of expiry of its term failing which the Managing Committee shall stand dissolved, on expiry of its term;
(iv) no one shall be 'eligible to contest elections to any office of the Managing Committees for more than two terms;
(v) elections shall be held through Secret Ballot and not by any other method;
(vi) an Election Committee comprising, two members of the Society (who are not contesting elections themselves) and Election. Officer nominated by the Registrar or his nominee shall ensure that elections are held strictly in accordance with the bye-laws and Election Rules;
(vii) a non-confidence motion shall be moved by at least 40% of the members of the Society before its General Body immediately in its ordinary or special meeting and the motion shall be deemed to be carried out if passed by 2/3 majority of the total membership of the society.
(Munawar Opel), Secretary to Government of Sindh."
3. In a nutshell, their common grievance is that by way of insertion of clauses (aa)(i) to (vii) in Rule 4 to the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 in terms of the above notification, much complications have been created for them, as such notification speak volumes about its unreasonableness, lack of wisdom, malice and manifest intention of the respondents to take over and supersede the affairs of societies. Further case of the petitioners is that responding to the earlier notification, dated 31-10-2000 relating to the same subject, inviting objections/suggestions, objections were filed by number of cooperative societies in Sindh, including some of the petitioners, but without adverting to and deciding such objections, the subsequent impugned notification has been issued by respondent No,1 ditto as per their earlier proposal, which is highly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.
4. In their paraawise reply to these petitions filed by the respondents, they have strongly refuted such assertions, and have contended that looking to the ground realities prevailing in the affairs of the cooperative societies in Sindh and to curb their malpractices, after following due procedure prescribed by law, and in a well-thought manner, much needed insertions/additions in Rule 4 have been incorporated through the impugned notification and such exercise has been lawfully undertaken within the scope of section 71 of the Sindh Cooperative Society Act, 1925.
5. Mr. I.H. Zaidi learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that a plain reading of impugned notification dated 22-11-2000, reflects clear unreasonableness of the terms of the new inserted clauses (aa)(i) to (vii) in Rule 4, by the said notification, which will virtually paralyze the working of the cooperative societies particularly those engaged in the housing schemes and other development work, as such amendments are irrational, biased and aimed to curb the independent working of the societies.
6. Making his comments on the newly inserted sub-rule (aa)(i) to Rule 4, he contended that short tenure of the office of the Managing Committee i,e, two years will serve no other purpose but to disturb the continuity in the working of the society and to burden them with extra expenditure for holding of elections after every two years. As regards sub-rule (aa)(ii) of Rule 4, he contended that requirement of quorum of at least 40% of the total membership for annual general meeting for holding elections of the society is highly unrealistic, as the majority of the members of cooperative societies are inactive, reluctant to participate and attend the annual general meetings of the Society. Thus, by imposition of such unreasonable and unrealistic condition, the petitioners have been put to an awkward position, as due to non-fulfilment of such condition automatically sub- rule (aa)(iii) will come into play, which will enable the Government functionaries to take over the charge of the Society, which will, in turn promote further corruption in the affairs of the Society.
Making reference to sub-rule (aa)(iii) of Rule 4, Mr. Zaidi urged that the condition of automatic dissolution of the Managing Committee on the expiry of its term of office, in case they failed to hold selection before the date of expiry of their terms of office, is also too harsh and will adversely effect the smooth functioning of the affairs of the Society. Moreso, as some times elections of the Society are delayed for certain unforeseen reasons, beyond the control of the Committee. Learned counsel after making halfhearted arguments as regards adverse consequences of insertion of sub-rules (aa)(iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) to Rule 4 by impugned notification, conceded that insertion of these clauses/sub-rules to Rule 4 will enable the cooperative societies to ensure transparent and smooth functioning of their respective societies and to curb the practice of monopolization of the affairs of the Society by certain individuals or groups, which had its own adverse consequences to the working and affairs of the cooperative societies and its members. Mr. I.H. Zaidi further made reference to section 23(4) of the General Clauses Act and contended that under this provision of law the respondents, before issuing the impugned notification were bound to take into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners and other cooperative societies in the like position, but this exercise was not undertaken by them. Thus, on this account too the impugned notification is liable to be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
7. Mr. Aamir Aziz Khan learned counsel for the petitioner No,2 in C.P. No,D-302 of 2001 has adopted the arguments of Mr. I.H. Zaidi. He has further argued that it is the sole prerogative of the members of the Society to frame their own bye-laws, rules and regulations as per their suitability, therefore, the respondents under the garb of impugned notification cannot be permitted to transgress such authority of the petitioners-society. Learned counsel, however, could not controvert the practical utility of sub-rules (aa)(iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of Rule 4, added by the impugned notification.
8. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada learned A.A.-G.. Sindh representing the respondents in this case has advanced his arguments relying upon the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the respondents, and contended that by virtue of section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, respondent No,1 had full authority to make amendments/additions/ insertions in the existing rules as provided in the impugned notification dated 22-11-2000. He, therefore, argued that, to curb the prevalent malpractices in the affairs of the cooperative societies, which is a matter of common knowledge, the issuance of impugned notification is the first step in the right direction which should not be interfered with by this Court.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties counsel and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted position that for issuing the impugned notification under section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, Provincial Government is duly authorized, therefore, no illegality was committed by the respondents in the exercise of such powers. Moreover, material available on record shows that for issuance of impugned notification proper procedure was followed by the respondent No,1 by inviting objections in the first instance, before issuance of such notification. In such circumstances mere assertion of Mr. Zaidi that the objections raised on behalf of the cooperative societies, to such proposed additions/ insertions in the Rules, were not taken into consideration by the concerned authority have no force, as such allegation have been decided by the respondents and presumption of correctness is attached to the official acts of the Government functionaries.
10. Coming to the arguments of Mr. Zaidi with reference to the alleged difficulties to be faced by the cooperative societies due to the newly-inserted sub-rules (aa)(i), (ii) and (iii) to Rule 4, frankly speaking none of his arguments in this regard has impressed us, as one can easily judge the spirit of such additions in the rules, which is nothing but to ensure transparency in the working and affairs of the cooperative societies and to discourage monopolization of the affairs of the societies by few individuals. In our opinion, mere fact that in holding of election for the office of the Members of the Managing Committee after every two years some expenses will have to be incurred by the Society, cannot be made basis to conclude that insertion of such sub-rule in Rules 4 is not justified or in any manner it is prejudicial to the interest of the cooperative societies at large. Similarly, sub- rule (aa)(ii) providing for the condition of attendance of minimum 40% of the members of the Society as quorum for the annual general meeting for holding elections, also seems to be aimed to identify the societies who have been managing their affairs by maintaining fake membership of the persons of their choice and of those members, who have otherwise no interest in the affairs of the society, but retained to protect the vested interest of few individuals who may have highjacked the Society. Needless to observe that lack of interest of genuine members in the affairs of the Society can be easily controlled by insertion of some penal clauses in the bye-laws of the society, to ensure their attendance at least in the annual general meeting of the Society. Sub-rule (aa)(iii) is also quite reasonable, fair and rather appropriate to curb the tendency of office-bearers of the Managing Committee of the Society that once they enter the office in their capacity as members of the Managing Committee or office-bearer, they forget holding of election in terms of the bye- laws of the society, and for that they give lame excuses to avoid holding of elections in time.
Volume of pending litigations in Courts emanating from such disputes of the cooperative societies, (many a time even collusive in nature) is proof of these facts to which this Court cannot remain oblivious. Indeed rules framed in generalized form, may not suit to certain individuals or the societies, but looking to its over all practical utility and impact the same cannot be declared illegal or even unreasonable or irrational to redress the grievances of such negligible number of individuals/societies.
11. To sum up, we have not been able to convince ourselves that any of the so-called shortcomings referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the insertion of sub-rules (aa)(i) to (vii) of Rule 4 are genuine pr valid, to strike down the impugned notification through an order of this Court.
Rather after going through the detailed parawise comments to this petition submitted by the respondents. We are satisfied that impugned notification has been issued by the respondents in good faith and in the interest of public-at-large to ensure that corrupt practices prevailing in the, affairs of the cooperative society nowadays may be checked properly at the level of Government and that the affairs of the cooperative societies are properly controlled for this purpose.