' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The parties are ready to advance the arguments and want to address this Court on law points. This case will be treated as a "Pakka" case.
2. The Supreme Court Employees Cooperative Housing Society (SCECHS) was registered in the year 1984 under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The object of the Society, as it spells out from clause 4 of its Bye-Laws, is to promote the economic interests of its members on the principle of cooperation, particularly to layout establish and maintain a residential colony for its members. The petitioners claim to be the members of the Society under Membership Nos.326, 325 and 482 respectively. The petitioners were provisionally offered to purchase plots measuring 500 square yards each which they did. The election schedule of SCECHS was issued by the Sub-Committee by publication in the Newspaper on 3-11-2011, the Election process starting from 14-11-2011, the day fixed for display of the voters list and ending on 10-12-2011, the day fixed for the polling. The petitioners claiming to be the members of the Society agitate for being declined a room in the voters list.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the regular members of the Society and own the plots offered to them; that as per the definition of Voter given in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Election Rules, they being the members of the Society and being not defaulter towards the dues are eligible voters and also qualify to be the candidates in the election under Rule 3 of the Rules ibid.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the elections to the various offices of the Society are being held for the previous 15 years. The petitioners claiming to be the members of the Society since the year 2003, were never the voters and they have never objected to the 'voters list displayed before every election; that the petitioners did not even submit any objection to the present voters list on the day specified in the instant election schedule. Thus, they are not entitled to inclusion of their names in the voters list at this stage when only two days are left in the polling process; that the petitioners are not eligible to partake in the election as they are not the members of the Society on account of non-fulfilment the conditions of membership as enumerated in clause 7(7) of the Bye-Laws that postulates that a member besides fulfilling other terms and conditions has to be an employee or a. Retired employee of the Supreme Court of Pakistan or a spouse of the employee or widow of an ex- employee. He further argues that every voter has to be a member of the Society but every member is not necessarily qualified to be a voter or a candidate as certain conditions and qualifications have been laid down in Rules 2(1)(d), 3 and 4 of the Rules; that the election schedule having been announced and advertised through publication in the daily newspaper on 3-11-2011, the instant petition filed on 1-12-2011 suffers from laches. He argues that this petition is not maintainable as clause 47(I1)(a) of the Bye-laws ousts the jurisdiction of any Court in a matter which the Government, the Registrar or his nominee, any Society or any person is empowered to dispose of and the instant dispute was to be referred to the Registrar under clause 47(1). It is lastly argued that an application made by the petitioners on 29-11-2011 referring the dispute to the respondent Registrar is yet pending.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the respondents and the learned A.A.-G.
And have also gone through the record.
6. The silence of the petitioners in the past over the non-inclusion of their names in the Voters list does not amount to acquiescence and does not furnish a ground to non-suit them. This petition filed after 27 days of publication of schedule cannot be said to be suffering from laches. The petitioners had made a reference of the dispute to the Registrar on 29-11-2011 as is permissible under clause 47(1) of the bye-laws. The same should have been decided within a couple of days. It yet awaits an outcome. The possible inference will be that the framers of the bye-laws and the referee Registrar, both, do not intend to redress the grievance of the aggrieved members. The remedy provided under the said clause cannot be said to be efficacious. The maintainability of this petition cannot be questioned on these grounds.
7. The respondents do not deny the issuance of provisional offer to the petitioners for allotment of the plots with specific reference to their membership numbers. The consequent ownership of the plots by the petitioners in the Society is also not disputed by them. Their main stay is that the petitioners though owners of the plots but are not the members of the Society as they do not fall under the definition of a member as given under clause 7 of the Bye-Laws. They do not fulfil the last condition of being an employee or retired employee or a spouse of such an employee of Supreme Court of Pakistan and even if they are members, they are not entitled to participate in the election.
This argument of the respondents is not acceptable to reasoning and logic. Clause of Bye-Laws unequivocally provides that admission of members will be based on equality and their will be no discrimination between them, nor will there be any difference between their rights and liabilities and the membership shall consist of (i) Persons who join in the application for registration (which.
Is not the case of the petitioners), (ii) Persons admitted in accordance with these bye-laws), (iii)- Two nominees of Registrar, as ex-officio members of the Society (which is also not the case of the petitioners). Besides these three modes of admittance to the list of the members, there is yet another inlet to this list. Under paragraph 13(3) of the Bye-Laws, a transferee of the plot also becomes a member of the Society. Since the petitioners have been admitted to the membership of the Society, they have purchased the plots offered to them, they would be deemed to be the members of the Society as good as the others are. Clause 6 of the Bye-Laws leaves no room for further classification among the members or for discrimination between them or for difference between their rights and liabilities. Rule 2(1)(d) of the Election Rules defines a "Voter". It means a member of the Society who is not a defaulter towards the dues of the Societies. None of the petitioners are alleged to be such a defaulter by the respondents. Had it been the intention of the makers of the Bye-Laws and the Election Rules to confine the right to participate in the election to those members of the Society only who had joined in making the application for registration, it would have cropped up and spelled out from the definition of a 'Voter' in Rule 2 of the Election Rules. The right of franchise has to be extended and expanded so that the collective will of all the members my pave way for good decisions destined to promote the economic interests of its members particularly for providing them a place to nest in.
8. The sale and purchase of the residential plots, which is permissible under the Rules of this Society has, except for a few short recessions, been a lucrative business carried out by the original allottees and owners of the residential plots. After the passage of a couple of years, the original members are always reduced to a minority and the transferees emerge as a majority. The right to partake in the election cannot be confined and restricted to a few members only who had participated in making the application for registration of the Society or to the employees of the Supreme Court or their spouses, thus, de-franchising the majority of the members of Society who were later on admitted to its membership in accordance with the Bye-Laws and through transfer of the plots.
This would give way to imposition of the opinion and will of a minority on the majority of the members of the Society. Such a practice is the attribute of the apartheid and colonial systems only and not of those collection of the peoples that strive for ensuring the participation of its citizens in running its affairs. In my opinion, I am guided by the judgment rendered in the case titled Mst.
Halima Rasheed v. Registrar Cooperative Housing Society and 32 others reported as (2010 YLR 2497). The respondents are directed to include the names of all the members of the Society in the electoral roll except for these who are defaulter towards the dues of the Society. The Election Sub- Committee shall make all arrangements for holding of the elections after notifying the election schedule afresh in accordance with Rule 5 of the Election Rules of Supreme Court Employees Cooperative Housing Society (SCECHS). This petition is accepted.