Atir Mahmood, J. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 54 of Co-operatives Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act") before respondent No.2-Registrar Co-operatives Punjab with the prayer that his membership of Statelife Insurance Employees Co-operative Housing Society , Lahore (hereinafter called "the Society") be declared lawful and bona fide since 31.10.2014. The petitioner contested the same by filing written reply . After hearing both sides, respondent No.2 accepted petition of respondent No.4 vide order dated 27.07.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 64 of the Act which was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 04.08.2016.
Hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that respondents No.1 & 2 have failed to consider legal as well as factual aspects of the case; that respondent No.4 claims his membership of the Societ y on the basis of alleged payment receipt of membership without transfer of plot No.297, Sector-E (hereinafter called "the plot") which was allegedly transferred on 14.06.2016; that membership to transferee of a plot can only be granted upon transfer of plots but in this case no plot was transferred on the relevant date as claimed by respondent No.4, i.e. 31.10 .2014, therefore, respondent No.4 could not be granted membership of the Society in view of Bye-laws of the Society; that no membership certificate was ever issued in favour of respondent No.4; that the Society in its written reply before respondent No.1 has admitted that documents relied upon by respondent No.4 are not available in record of the Society and that mere submission of form and fee does not confer rights of membership; that as per provisions of Model Election Rules, it is necessary for a Member and a Voter that he is owner of the plot in the Society; that mere insertion of some documents in file of plot without transfer of a plot does not confer membership rights whereas plots have been transferred on 14.06.2016, therefore, after the transfer of plot, his membership will be placed before the Managing Committee of Society and then he will be selected for membership and thereafter , in case the membership not put before Annual General Meeting of the Society , his membership will automatically be confirmed after one year; that respondent No.4 has illegally been declared member of the Society vide impugned orders; that petition of respondent No.4 was decided in a clandestine manner without issuance of mandatory notice under Rule 32 of the Act; that the impugned orders are against policy of the department as well; that the impugned orders are against law and fact, therefore, the same be set aside by way of allowing the instant writ petition.
3. While relying upon judgments reported as Military Accounts Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 223), Messrs Canal Breeze Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Agricultural and Transport Development Corporation (Pvt) Limited (2000 SCMR 506), The Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi Vs. Mst. Anwar Sultana and others (PLD 1969 Karachi 474), Telecard Limited through Authorized representative Vs. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman (2014 CLD 415) and Muhammad Mujtaba Abdullah and another Vs. Appellate Authority/Additional Sessions Judge and others (2016 SCMR 893), learned counsel for respondent No.4 have vehemently opposed this writ petition. Learned Law Officer has also supported the impugned orders passed by Registrar , Co-operative Housing Societies and Secretary Co-operative Punjab.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Dispute between the parties is regarding membership of respondent No.4 of the Society. Initially, the petitioner wrote letter dated 11.06.2016 to Registrar Co-operative Societies seeking advice that the plot was being transferred in the name of respondent No.4 against membership No.27083 which was issued in October, 2014 without transfer of the plot and since the membership was not used, membership fee be refunded to respondent No.4 and the plot be transferred to a new membership number. After coming into knowledge of this letter, respondent No.4 filed Petition No.54 of the Act seeking declaration that he is a bona fide and rightful member of the Society. The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the membership of respondent No.4 was never admitted after selection by the Managing Committee followed by confirmation at a general meeting. He has relied upon the Byelaws of the Society , particularly Byelaw No.8 of the Society which is reproduced below for ready-reference: "8.
(1). Members shall be admitted after selection by the Managing Committee subject to confirmation at a General Meeting. In case failure to put up, the membership will stand automatically confirmed after one year .
(2) Application for membership shall be in writing in the prescribed form. Such application will form a part of Register of Members. Every member on admission shall pay the Share Money specified in Bye-Law-18 & 19, which will be refundable.
He will also pay Rs.5000/- as admission fee, which after approval of membership shall not be refundable.
(3) Person eligible for membership will not ordinarily be refused. In case of refusal he will be informed accordingly in writing within two months, whereafter , if he desires, he can raise this issue before the General Meeting.
(4) On admission, each member will be issued a membership certificate which will be on prescribed form. In case it is misplaced or lost a duplicate certificate will be issued on payment of a prescribed fee after advertisement in the Daily Newspaper .
(5) Sub-division of plot will be subject to rules & regulations of local development authority or local body . The Managing Committee will decide this issue."
(Emphasis provided)
Bare reading of above Bye-law makes it abundantly clear that it was duty of the Managing Committee to consider the application of respondent No.4 which was submitted on 31.10.2014 alongwith membership fee and share money coupled with consent of his wife for transfer of 50% share of the plot and if the said process as mentioned in Sub-Byelaw (1) was not completed, then there is no fault of respondent No.4 rather after completion of one year, his membership stood automatically confirmed. Byelaw 8(3) further strengthens the case of respondent No.4 that had there been any refusal by the Society qua eligibility of membership of respondent No.4, then it was mandatory to inform him in writing within two months of such refusal. In view of the above circumstances, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that without ownership of the plot, membership cannot be conferred, also becomes irrelevant. Had there been any inaction on part of the respondent Society , it could not be attributed to respondent No.4. Even otherwise, letter dated 01.11.2014 addressed to the President of the Society makes it clear that previous owner of the Society , Mrs. Anira Mobbin asserted therein that 50% of the share of plot No.297-E were transferred to respondent No.4 on 31.12.2014 and she also surrendered her right of vote in favour of respondent No.4 on 31.12.2014 meaning thereby that respondent No.4 not only was a member of the Society but also owner of 50% of the plot at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Society ever objected to membership of respondent No.4 in any manner . Thou gh there is an alleged contesting written reply on behalf of the Society submitted through Mr. Muhammad Arshad Cheema, Advocate High Court, Lahore before the appellate forum, i.e. Secretary Co-operatives Punjab, a copy of which has been annexed with this writ petition but the said reply is not singed by any of the representatives of the Society . Needless to say that the said President of the Society is allegedly contesting the election against present respondent No.4. Therefore, the mala fide on his part cannot be ruled out. The petitioner being the Finance Secretary of the Society has also failed to support this petition through any record of the Society .
6. The petitioner admitted the insertion of the documents in file of the plot but assert ed that without transfer of a plot, membership rights cannot be conferred. Undeniably , the petitioner never challenged the membership of respondent No.4 by agitating the matter before the Society or before the competent authorities. He only contested application of respondent No.4 and that too, without any lawful authority conferred upon him by the Society through any resolution. In my view, the petitioner has even no locus standi to challenge the membership of respondent No.4. The Registrar Co-operatives as well as Secretary Co-operatives have rightly and lawfully decided the matter . No interference is called for .
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of any force.
The same is dismissed .