' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The backdrop of the Controversy is that the appellant, Gujrat Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It was issued a certificate of incorporation and granted a licence under section 3 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, later an Ordinance was promulgated on 5th June, 2007, which now governs the dispute as the same has been referred to by both counsel. Two complaints were filed by the members of Chamber, inter alia, levelling serious charges of violation of Memorandum and Articles of Association, gross irregularities, holding of various positions in the set up of office-bearers contrary to law, membership with fake national tax numbers. Illegal election of Qamar Zaman Gill as President of Chamber of Commerce and Industry for 3 years (2004-2007)(the detailed grounds are incorporated in para 1 of the impugned order). Respondent No,2 made a detailed investigation into the matter and concluded that of the six allegations referred to above, the allegations contained at Sr.No,(i),(iii),(iv),(v) and (vi) stand proved, while allegation No,(ii), could not be proved.
Respondent No,1 dissatisfied with this state of affairs acted under section 16 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 2007, superseded the Executive Committee and office-bearers and appointed an Administrator to oversee the working of the Chamber, till 30 November, 2008, when elections are scheduled to be held. The Administrator was tasked to perform the following functions:--
(i) To scrutinize the Membership of the Chamber and remove all those Members, who were inducted in violation of Memorandum and Articles of the Association of the Chamber.
(ii) To finalize voters' list on the basis of purged Membership.
(iii) To conduct the elections of the Gujrat Chamber of Commerce and Industry, so as to complete the process upto 30-11-2008.
(iv) Thereafter handover the charge to the newly-elected management of Gujrat Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
' The appellant is aggrieved of this order, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were condemned unheard, they were not given proper opportunity of hearing as contemplated by Ordinance, 2007, they no doubt were issued a show-cause notice, which was duly responded to, but the principle of audi alteram partem was not adhered to in letter and spirit as respondent No,2 did not himself conduct the hearing, therefore an illegality was committed. The other allegations levelled in the order were duly responded to in a written reply, but the same have not been addressed in the order, there is not a word to this effect in the impugned order. Further the order in question does not give any reasoning nor is backed by any evidence to prove the charges and warrant such drastic action, thus, the order is non-speaking, against judicial dictates and principles of natural justice. It also was specifically argued that most of the office bearers removed were not holding position in the period 2004-2007, thus, they were illegally removed and the proceedings be remitted to respondent No,2 for decision afresh.
4. Mr. Aamer Rehman, learned Deputy Attorney-General, challenged the maintainability of the appeal controverting the allegations of the appellant, he stated clearly and unequivocally that the appellant was given a fair opportunity of hearing, a show-cause notice as contemplated by section 16 of Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007, was issued, it was responded to by the appellant, a detailed inquiry was held in this context, which clearly proved that there was fabrication and tampering of record, a number of members investigated were found to possess fake NTN numbers, it also reflected that total number of Association Class members as claimed by the appellant was 238 and Chamber Class Members 570. Both figures were incorrect as the correct number of Members as accepted by the appellants themselves was 198 and 450, respectively. This alone was a ground sufficient to prove that the affairs of the Chamber were not being conducted as ordained by law. Further the Administrator appointed has limited discretion and role, he is to ensure that fair and transparent elections are held by obviating chances of any illegality. The arrangement in any case is for limited period, the purpose of the present proceedings is to delay the process of election, which is against the spirit of law he, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard.
6. Perusal of record, appended with the present appeal, reflects, that the proceedings, which resulted into the appointment of the Administrator and supersession of the Executive Committee were initiated on two complaints filed by the Members of Gujrat Chamber of Commerce and Industry in April and June, 2008. Pursuant thereto, as required by law, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant under section 16 seeking a reply to the allegations. A written reply was duly filed by appellant detailing the reasons and controverting the allegations. Thereafter an inquiry into the affairs of Gujrat Chamber of Commerce and Industry was conducted, which proved the allegations as contained in the impugned order at Sr. Nos.(i), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi), while allegation No,(ii), contained was found as incorrect. Thereafter an Administrator was appointed to oversee the processes of election and perform the duties as contained in paragraph.4 of the letter, an Advisory Committee of five persons was also appointed.
7. The core question for adjudication before this Court is whether the parameters as contained in section 16 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007, were adhered to or not. Section 16 of the Ordinance is segmented into two parts, the first part relates to the powers of the Federal Government to supersede the Executive Committee of a trade organization for a period of two years, if it formulates an opinion that the affairs of the said trade organization are not being properly managed, but this is qualified with a condition that the Executive Committee intended to be superseded be given a notice in writing and afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the intended supersession. Later part of section 16 is of paramount importance, as it is in harmony and consonance with the universally recognized principle of law that nobody can be condemned unheard. Therefore, the purpose of this incorporation is to ensure that the executive committee which is intended to be suspended or superseded be given an opportunity of representation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that they were not given a right of representation as ordained in section 16, therefore, they were condemned unheard. The tenor of the order dated 29-9-2008, in this context reflects that the Federal Government directed the Director General Trade Organizations to investigate the matter and submit recommendation to the Federal Government in this context. It was on basis of these findings that the impugned order was passed, it reflected in paragraph. 2 that the Director-General Trade Organizations, respondent No,2, investigated the matter and also provided an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties to be represented either personally or through their counsel and pursuant thereto he gave his findings qua the allegations as listed in para.1 of the order (S. No,(i), (iii), (vi). The impugned order itself is absolutely silent as to whether any right of representation as provided by law to the Executive Committee intended to be superseded was granted or not.
8. The provisions of section 16 of the Ordinance are not only clear and unambiguous qua the right of representation to the Executive Committee intended to be suspended, but also clearly advert to the timing in this context. This right is to be B exercised after the Federal Government has formulated an opinion that affairs of a Registered Body are not being performed in accordance with the standards set by the Ordinance.
9. In the present matter the Federal Government as reflected in para. 2 of the impugned order, formulated this opinion on the basis of inquiry conducted by respondent No,2 and thereafter it proceeded to initiate action under section 16 . Of the Ordinance. Therefore, it is clear that the timing as required by section 16 of the Ordinance, to issue notice was not adhered to as such no valid notice as required by law was issued. Even if this anomaly is condoned, that a notice was validly issued by respondent No,2, earlier, the requirement of representation was not adhered to. As stated earlier, there is nothing to this effect available in the impugned order. Therefore, this most important and pivotal requirement was not adhered to, thus, proceedings as ordained by section 16 were not followed and are violative of the procedure ordained by section 16 of the Ordinance, therefore, not sustainable.
10. Representation clearly means an opportunity of being heard in person or through a representative, this right is quasi-judicial and not administrative, therefore, it was incumbent, mandatory and necessary for the respondents to afford the appellant a right of hearing, based on principles of natural justice, more significantly when section 14 of the Ordinance bestows upon respondent No,2 same powers as are available to a Civil Court. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No,2 performs quasi-judicial functions, thus a corresponding duty is cast upon him to adhere to at least simple and universally recognized principles of law and justice. On touch-stone of these parameters the impugned order is not tenable. Reference: Messrs Eastern Leather Company (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 others PLD 2004 Lahore 83.
11. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the proceedings would deem to be pending with the respondents, who will proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the guidelines stated above and law.
12. The appellants shall appear before respondent No,2 on 21-10-2008.
' Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.