' ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, J.-This constitutional petition arises out of the following facts :
2. The petitioner is a religious trust founded by Dr. Habibur Rehman Ellahi Alvi who is also its Managing Trustee. Firdaus Co-operative Housing Society (respondent No, 2) allotted plot No, 20/3 to Dr. Habibur Rehman Ellahi Alvi who subsequently gifted this plot to the Al via Tabligh Trust (petitioner) with a missionary object and also had gifted bulk ot his property and assets to the Trust. As long back\as on 2nd March, 1960 by a registered sublicense the plot was transferred to the petitioner. Even since then the plot stood in the name of the petitioner. Earlier, in the first round of the litigation one Masooda Begum had disputed the allotment in favour of Dr. Alvi but finally the Chief Commissioner of Karachi vide his order dated 12th September, 1958 upheld the allotment of the said plot in favour of Dr. Habibur Rehman Alvi. Masooda Begum did not succeed even in a civil suit No, 2201/6U which was finally decided by the Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 16th September, 1966.
3. On 21st November, 1966 respondent No, 2 namely Firdaus Co-operative Housing Society unilaterally cancelled the allotment and also sought to deprive the petitioner from the membership of the Society.' Then a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No,
2. The matter was referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Co-operative Societies Act and he appointed one Mr. Rafiq Siddiqui as Nominee to decide by award the dispute between the parties.
On 27th October, 1967 by an award given by the Nominee, the complaint of respondent No, 2 was dismissed and all the contentions raised therein were rejected and the allotment in favour of the petitioner was upheld. The award is at Annexure "A". Thereafter respondent No, 2 filed an appeal against the said award to the Registrar who after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal on 22nd October, 1968. The appellate judgment is Annexure "13", Respondent No, 2 preferred a revision to the Government of West Pakistan against the said order. The Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, Ministry of Works, Irrigation and Power by his order dated 7th February, 1969 dismissed the . Revision and C thus finally the transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioner remained intact and undisturbed. The copy of the order dated 7th February, 1969 is at Annexure "C".
4. The petitioner desired to let out the plot to Burmah Shell for a petrol pump and service station.
The petitioner obtained sanction from the K. D. A., K. M. C.,- the police and all other agencies and authorities concerned. Even respondent No, 2 issued a no objection certificate for a petrol pump and conveyed their approval to the authorities concerned. The copy of certificate is at Annexure 'll".
5. The petitioner had filed ejectment proceedings against some trespassers on the said plot in a Suit No, 1378/1972 before the Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi. In the suit proceedings the Secretary of the Society. (respondent .No, 2) made a statement that the plot had been resumed by the Society in 1966 and that the petitioner was not its transferee and had no locus standi. In the course of his statement made in the Court'on 23rd January, 1979 the Secretary of the Society one .
Mr. Aftab Ahmed produced a lease deed executed by respondent No, 1, the Government of Pakistan, in favour of-respondent No, 3, one Sulleman Habib.
6. The case of the petitioner briefly is that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No, 2 legally ended on 7th February, 1969 when the Secretary of the Government of West Pakistan had ultimately and finally dismissed the revision filed by respondent No,
2. The said plot thus stood in the name of the petitioner. The award, the decision in appeal by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the revision petition went in favour of the petitioner and the chapter was closed. The matter was decided by the competent lorums contemplated by law. Therefore, the subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No, 3 and the registration of sale deed is. Of no legal consequenee and such actions are without jurisdiction.
7. The counter-affidavits filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 briefly 'read, are to the effect that Dr. Alvi the Trustee of the petitioner had used under-hand methods and got allotted the plot in question in his name and also other plots to his family members. By violating rules.Of the bye-laws Of the Society: Dr. Alvi acquired membership of the Society on 4th November, 1955 while his formal application for membership was submitted on 31st March, 1956. The Society ultimately by a resolution of the General Body meeting cancelled the membership of Dr. Alvi on 21st November, 1966. It is contended that the award dated 27th October, 1967 given by the Registrar's Nominee was illegal and without jurisdiction. Then again on 27th November, 1974 (despite the appeal and revision) the Society by overwhelming majority reaffirmed the cancellation of membership of Dr. Alvi. The petitioner was duly apprised by registered letter dated 2nd January, 1975. It is further averred that the plot was E duly allotted to respondent No, 3 who has occupied the same and has raised construction and got the plans sanctioned. Respondent No, 1, the Government has executed lease deed through respondent No, 2 in favour of respondent No,
3. It is inter alia contended that the claim of respondent No, 3 is better than the claim of the petitioner. It is also contended that the plot is in possession of respondent No, 3.
8. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Lbadatyar Khan for the petitioner and Mr. Khaild Ishaq for respondent No,
3. Mr. Abbas Zia advanced arguments for respondent No, 2.
9. The arguments of Mr. Khalid Ishaq briefly are that writ petition in this case is not competent.
Secondly that the case of respondent No, 3 is on a better footing inasmuch as the lease deed was finally registered in favour of respondent No, 3 by the landlord the Government. .The arguments of Mr. Abbas Zia for respondent No, 2 were also same that of Mr. Khalid Ishaq, contending that the award given by the Nominee of the Registrar was illegal and without jurisdiction.
10. The award dated 22nd October, 1967 was given by a legally constituted forum after hearing both the parties. The contention inter alia between the parties are dealt in the award. It was held that one of the bye-laws were violated. Dr. Alvi was admitted as a member of the Society on 4th November, 1955 by a resolution passed by the Managing Committee. .The fact that the formal application for membership was filed on 31st March, 1956 does not and cannot invalidate the resolution passed by the Committee on 4th November, 1955. To have admitted a person as a member without a written application on a prescribed form may be called an irregular action but it cannot be termed as illegal. In the award it is mentioned that there appears no such discrepancy and the formal application on a prescribed form after six months is not at all odd but is quite in confirmity with the general practice and the office routine of the Societies. All these questions and the relevant minor objections were dealt by the award dated 27th October, 1967. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the appeal preferred by the Society against the award.. The Deputy Registrar in his order has made the following observation which has force and substance and the same is quoted below : ..In regard to the transfer of the plot by the respondent to Alvia Tablighi Trust, it is on record that the respondent in his capacity as Administrator and in exercise of powers of the Managing Committee which was vested in him had transferred his plot to Alvia Tablighi Trust in 1958. Later on after the management had been restored to an elected Managing Committee, the Committee approved the execution of a sub-licence in favour of Alvia Tablighi Trust which was'duly executed and registered in the Sub-Registrar office on 2nd March, 1960. The legality of the execution of the sub- licence was challenged by the succeeding Managing Committee through an arbitration plaint under section 54 which was filed on 17th Deceit-ter., 1966, that is to say, nearly seven years after the execution of the sub-licence. That cannot stand after so long a time and also when such licence has since been executed. In conclusion it is ordered that the membership of the respondent be restored and the sub-licence which was executed between the committee of the appellant society and Alvia Tablighi Trust should not be disturbed."
11. The revision against the order of the Deputy Registrar was also dismissed on 7th February, 1969. It has been argued by the learned counsel of the respondent No, 3 that as the lease deed between respondent No, 1 the Government i. e. The landlord and respondent No, 3 has been registered, it stands on a better footing and that in view of this fact the petitioner has no right to claim the disputed plot. This piece of argument has no force in view of the fact that all the legally constituted forums bad decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and that a subsequent effort to undo what the legally constituted forums had decided is in our opinion without jurisdiction and is exercise to violate the normal procedure which is provided under the statute. The notice given to the petitioner dated 2nd January, 1975 that the allotment was cancelled is of no consequence whatsoever and similarly the lease deed in favour of respondent No, 3 is without jurisdiction in our considered opinion.
12. The petitioner had exhausted all the remedies open to him to vindicate his case. The petitioner did not expect that the Society would go against the orders and the .Findings of the legally constituted forums and illegally cancel its allotment and that the only forum for the petitioner was to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In our opinion the writ is competent in this case.
Reference is made to PLD 197 Karachi 373 where it was held that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction has ample powers to grant relief in cases where the Authority or Chairman of K. D.
A. Acted in arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious manner, not even giving fair opportunity . To show cause against the cancellation of the allotment, we would not go into those facts on which the findings are already available by the legally constituted forums and to repeat these facts would be a futile exercise. The simple point which is involved in the instant writ petition is whether it was open to the respondent No, 2 to again cancel the plot after the decisions of the legally constituted forums. Our view is that the further acts and actions of cancellation and notice whatever they be, were illegal and without jurisdiction. Even the lease deed in favour of respondent No, 3 executed by the tenant/Government is without jurisdiction.
13. We have given cur utmost consideration to the facts of this writ petition and are the opinion that the petition may be allowed in the following =Miler :-
(1) It is hereby declared that the decision of the General Body Meeting of the Society on 24th November, 1974 by reaffirming the cancellation of the membership of Dr. H. R. Alvi and the cancellation of his allotment was illegal and without jurisdiction.
(2) (2) It is also declared that whatever followed in the wake of such an illegal decision was also without jurisdiction and ultra vires.
(3) The respondents are restrained to enforce the above decision or to take any action prejudicial to the petitioner's interest. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.