' IJAZ AHMED CHADUHRY, J.---Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged order, dated 21- 4-2007 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Punjab, Lahore/respondent No,2 and order, dated 8-9-2009 passed by the Secretary, Cooperatives Department, Government the Punjab, Lahore/respondent No, 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Rana Mehmood Ahmad Khan/ respondent No,3 along with others filed an application before respondent No,2 for the purpose of holding an inquiry under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter shall be written as "Act"). Respondent No,2 directed the District Officer Cooperative/Deputy Registrar Cooperative, Gujranwala to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit report, who after finalizing the inquiry submitted his report on 10- 4-2007. Though the inquiry report was in favour of the petitioner/ Society but respondent No,2 vide order, dated 21-4-2007, without providing opportunity to the petitioner, again directed the District Officer Cooperative to hold inquiry under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Society/petitioner. Against the said order the petitioner filed revision petition before the Secretary/respondent No,1, who vide order, dated 8-5- 2007, while accepting the revision petition filed by the petitioner, remanded the matter to respondent No,2 for its decision afresh under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in view of the report submitted by the District Officer Cooperative, Gujranwala, dated 10-4-2007. Respondent No,3 challenged order, dated 8-5- 2007 before this Court through Writ Petition No,5913 of 2007, which was accepted vide order, dated 29-10-2008 and the order passed by respondent No,1 was set aside with direction to him to decide the revision petition afresh. Respondent No,1 after calling comments from respondent No,2 dismissed the revision petition vide order, dated 8-9-2009 and upheld the order for holding inquiry under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 passed by respondent No,2, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Society submits that order, dated 21-4-2007 was passed by respondent No,2 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for passing a fresh order, which order was challenged in the High Court through Writ Petition No, 5913 of 2007 by respondent No,3; that in the aforesaid writ petition impugned order was set aside with the consent of the petitioner and the order was passed that revision be decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties but no notice was given to the petitioner for hearing; that the inquiry was initiated under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which is suo motu powers of the Registrar. Learned counsel contends that suo mutu powers have been defined under sections 43(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 as the Registrar may of his own motion by himself or by a person duly authorized by him in writing in this behalf hold an inquiry into the constitution, work and financial condition of society or the Registrar can hold an inquiry on the requisition of society, duly authorized by rules made in this behalf to make such requisition in respect of one of its members, such member being itself a society or on the application of a majority of the Committee of the Society or on the application of 1/3rd of the members of the society; that respondent No,3 himself has violated the rules by converting the status of the residential plots into commercial plots; that respondent No,3 was a candidate of the election of Managing Committee of the Society and filing of said application by him was based on mala fide intentions; that due to this reason it is necessary that opportunity of hearing must be given to the petitioner by the Registrar before initiating inquiry under section 43 of the Act. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on 2004 YLR 1070 (Karachi Administration Employee Cooperative. Housing Society Ltd. v. Government of Sindh and others).
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that application was saved against the petitioner leveling allegation that the Managing Committee had controverted the status of the graveyard, school and mosque into residential plots and the commercial plots, which were allotted to the favorite persons; that number of complaints were filed against the Society/petitioner, hence, the Registrar while taking suo motu action directed for holding of inquiry into the matter; that after completion of inquiry under section 43 of the Act notice has to be issued to the petitioner and petitioner can be heard before taking any action in result of the inquiry; that in the writ petition filed against the Anti-Corruption Establishment the claim of the petitioner was that inquiry could not be conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and the inquiry was to be conducted by the Registrar under section 43 of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 contends that petitioner has joined the inquiry before the District Officer Cooperative, Gujranwala, so the petitioner cannot claim that opportunity of hearing was not granted to him; that he had accepted inquiry proceedings when he made consenting statement at the time of disposal of Writ Petition No,5913 of 2007; that there were many complaints against the petitioner/Society and thereupon respondent No,1 had taken suo motu notice; that one Iftikhar Ahmad also moved application to the Chief Minister leveling allegations against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on 1968 SCMR 423 (Pir Ellahi Bukhsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Karachi and others) and PLD 1968 Karachi 422 (Muzaffar Ali Shah and others v. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Karachi and Muhammad Zafar).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. The District Officer Cooperative, Gujranwala, was directed by the Registrar/respondent No,2 to hold preliminary inquiry under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inquiry cannot' be initiated under subsection
(1) of section 43 of the Act and only suo motu inquiry under subsection (2) of section 43 of the Act can be held on the request of Managing Committee and on the request of the majority of the committee of the society or on the application of 1/3rd of the members of the Society. From the bare perusal of section 43 it appears that the Registrar while passing order regarding holding of inquiry has committed no illegality. The Registrar has passed order for holding of inquiry on the basis of complaints in which serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner/Society. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry proceedings has no force, as the inquiry as ordered to be conducted under section 43 of the Act on the serious allegation by the officer authorized for the said purpose and it was not mandatory upon the Registrar to issue notice before holding said inquiry. Reliance is placed on the case of (Muzaffar Ali Shah and others v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karachi) PLD 1968 Karachi 422 wherein, it has been held that "personal hearing not a necessary requirement of rule of natural justice". Respondent No,2 has committed no illegality in passing order to hold in inquiry, which has been upheld by respondent No,1 through impugned order. I do not find any illegality or improbability in the impugned orders, There is no justification to interfere in the said orders as serious allegations have been levelled against the Managing Committee of the Society that they had controverted the status of the graveyard, school and mosque in the residential plots and commercial plots and also allotted the same to the favourite persons on cheaper rates without putting the said plots in open auction against the interest of the Society, who, thus, has caused monetary loss to the Society.
8. The Registrar/respondent No,2 has adopted the legal procedure to pass suo motu order for holding of inquiry in the matter of serious allegations. In 1968 SCMR 423 the similar question was dealt with and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "It seems clear enough that none of the conditions specified in subsection (2) of section 43 was in existence when the order in question was made, so that the Registrar did not act under any obligation such as that created by this subsection. His action, therefore, clearly lay under subsection (1), i.e, he acted in exercise of the discretion conferred by that subsection, and it does not translate his action to the second subsection that he was moved so to act by reason of complaints reaching him of maladministration of the Society's affairs,"
9. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner runs on different footing, which cannot be followed in this case. Even otherwise sufficient time has elapsed due to pendency of the litigation and the matter cannot be lingered on the basis of technicalities. This practice cannot be appreciated in dispensing justice, as the technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice and people should not be ousted on the ground of technicalities. Reliance is placed on (Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and 2 others) (PLD 1963 SC 382). The relevant portion is reproduce as under:-- "I must confess that having dealt with technicalities for more than forty years, out of which thirty years are at the Bar, I do not feel much impressed with them. I think the proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to a certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defects. Any system which by giving effect to one form and not to the substance defects suostantive rights is defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his."
9. This petition being devoid of force is dismissed.