' This order shall dispose of I.C.As.Nos.424 and 53 of 2012 directed against the judgment dated 14-5- 2012 by the learned Single Judge as common question of law is involved in both the appeals.
2. The judgment under appeal by the learned Single Judge dated 14-5-2012 deals with two, points Firstly, it declares the orders dated 6-1-2012 and 7-1-2012 ("impugned orders") issued by the respondent No,4, President, Punjab Provincial Branch of Pakistan Red Crescent Society ("Society") to be incompetent and void. It may be mentioned that the office of the respondent No,4 is held ex- officio by the Governor of Punjab. Secondly, on account of the pending challenge by respondent No,1 before the Civil Court, validity of amendments in the Punjab Provincial Branch of Pakistan Red Crescent Society Rules ("Rules) made by the Provincial Managing Committee of the Society is left open by the learned Single judge for decision by the competent court.
3. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Under Regulation 10-A of the Society, its President, respondent No,4, has authority to nominate six members of the Managing Committee of the Society. By Regulation 11-D such nominees must be ex-officio members of the Society. In the present case, the impugned order dated 7-1-2012 nominates the appellant as Chairman of the Managing Committee and other private persons as members. These nominations are contrary to the terms of Regulation and are therefore illegal.
4. Insofar as the impugned order dated 6-1-2012 by the respondent No,4 is concerned, it annuls certain restrictive amendments to the Rules made by the Provincial Managing Committee of the Society. Respondent No,4 passed the said order by invoking power under section 8(1-D) of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society Act 1920 ("Act") as amended in 1974. The said statutory provision, however, pertains to the appointment of the Chairman of the first Provincial Branch Committee by the Governor of the Province. In the present case, admittedly, the Provincial Branch Committee i,e, Managing Committee of the Society is not its first Managing Committee. Therefore appointment of a new Chairman under said power is invalid. In any event, section 8(1-D) of the Act does not have nexus with the impugned action to annul amendments in the Rules made by the Provincial Managing Committee under Regulation No,14 read with Regulation No,30 of the Society.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 6-1-2012 is passed under a wrongly assumed jurisdiction and is ineffective.
5. The main point in the case is that the respondent No,4 lacks authority to override the executive or regulatory decisions of the Provincial Managing Committee of the Society. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 6-1-2012 and 7-1-2012 that interfere with such decisions and direct course of executive action determined by the respondent No,4 are issued in excess of authority vested in him. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14-5-2012 by the learned Single Judge has merit and valid basis.
6. However, one weighty point has been made by Mr. Jehanzeb Bharwana Advocate, who stands in place of the appellant on the ground of public interest after this Court rejected the locus standi of the appellant to defend the powers and role of the ex-officio President of the Society. The said opportunity was allowed to the learned counsel in the orders dated 7-2-2013 and 27-2-2013 whereby the locus standi of the appellant to claim the relief prayed was rejected. Said orders are reproduced below:-- Order dated 7-2-2013 ' It is contended that the amendment to regulations were made incompetently by the Managing Committee. Para-11 of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14-5-2012 allows the aggrieved party to challenge the amendments before the competent forum. In this case, the appellant has already challenged the said amendments before the civil court in a suit titled 'Zahid Bashir v.
Managing Committee'. As such, there is no remaining issue for determination at the instance of the appellant.
2. It is objected that the appellant is a discredited person about whom an inquiry was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The inquiry report was framed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore. The appellant has rendered no service to the society in order to be rewarded overnight with the office of the Chairman of the Punjab Provincial Branch of the Society. The appellant's appointment has been made by the Governor in exercise of his powers under the statute. The Governor's action has already been set aside by the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant shall place on record a list of services rendered by the appellant to the respondent society or for public service. The appellant shall also attend he proceedings. To come up on 27-2-2013.
Order dated 27-2-2013 ' The appellant, in person, has not placed on record list of services rendered to the public, but a list of his professional career and achievements has been placed on record which includes provision of security products in the U.S.A. The appellant is also serving as Vice President of the American Business Forum in Pakistan.
2. The said accomplishments do not have relevance with public service but reflects, personal achievements and distinctions. Such credentials may not be suitable for the discharge of obligation as Chairman of the Punjab Provincial Branch of Pakistan Red Crescent Society. Be that as it may, as recorded in the order dated 7-2-2012 the appellant has in any event challenged the amendment made by the Managing Committee in civil suit titled Zahir Bashir v. The Managing Committee, Consequently, having availed the remedy before the court of plenary jurisdiction, further resort to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is not justified.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment by the learned Single Judge also curtails the authority of the President of the Punjab Provincial Branch of Pakistan Red Crescent Society which is an ex-officio office held by the Governor of the Punjab. Submits that such interpretation affects the office of President in respect of its incumbent.
' Consequently, the question whether such amendment by the Managing Committee is permissible in terms of law may be examined by this Court. The learned counsel for the President seeks time to obtain instructions. Relist for 28-3-2013.
7. It is contended by Mr. Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana Advocate that respondent No,4 is a high constitutional functionary of the State. The impugned judgment diminishes his stature by depriving him of any moral or legal authority even to consider the complaints against action taken by the Provincial Managing Committee and in such matters relegates him to pursue a remedy before a court of law.
8. The respondent No,4 as President of the Society is a mere figurehead in relation to the executive matters of the Society. However, such a ceremonial office bearer has sufficient standing and authority to consider complaints made against executive functionaries of the Society and to refer the same to such persons that have the executive authority to deal with such complaints.
9. It is therefore, not necessary that the only recourse available to the respondent No, 4 in the matter is the learned civil court for securing redress of any wrong committed by the Provincial Managing Committee. The Act contemplates a parent body, namely the Society at the Federal level. The Federal structure is, managed by the Managing Body which is a superior authority over all the Provincial Branches. There are also other legal instruments to regulate the affairs of the Society, namely, its constitution and the rules framed thereunder. To the mind of the Court respondent No, 4 has the authority to approach the. Managing Body at the Federal level to highlight any complaint or grievance made with respect to the conduct and actions of the Provincial Managing Committee.
10. Accordingly, insofar as the decision of the learned Single Judge on the first point is concerned, namely, validity of the impugned orders dated 6-1-2012 and 7-1-2012 passed by respondent No,4 this Court affirms the same. On the second issue, which has not been decided by the learned Single Judge it is observed that in addition to availing any judicial remedy the respondent No,4 has authority to approach the Managing Body of the Society at the Federal level for redress of grievances against executive decisions taken by the Provincial Managing Committee.
Disposed of.