' This judgment shall dispose of two Writ Petitions No, 1842/66 and 1746/13 as they relate to the same matter. It shall, however, remain on the hie of W. P. No, 1746/73.
2. The facts in brief are ; that Ch. Hashmat Ali, petitioner during the period 1951 to 1952, on different dates obtained various amounts as loan from the Bank against the security of some bricks and a house situate in Shakargarh Town, District Sialkot. As the petitioner failed to clear the debt, in the first instance he was served with a notice under section 4(2) of Ordinance XXXIV of 1960; in reply whereof he denied his liability. However, he was prosecuted under section 8 of the Ordinance but was acquitted by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot by his order dated 31st July, 1964.
3. In the meanwhile, the West Pakistan Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 was enforced and the Departmental Authorities chose to enforce the recovery under this Ordinance. Accordingly, a notice (Annex : 'B') under section 5 was issued to him, and in replying the same, he again refused to admit his liability. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who was seized of the case, proceeded with the matter and by his directive dated 2nd November, 1966 (Annex : 'C') called upon the petitioner to secure the loan amounting to Rs, 12,604/90 and comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Ordinance. The fixation of the petitioner's liability at Rs, 12,604/90 was presumably made under section 6 of the Ordinance. Strangely enough while the determination made under Annex : "C" was still in the field, the Assistant Registrar issued to the petitioner another notice dated 22nd September, 1966 (Annex : 'D') under section 5 of the Ordinance. Writ Petition No, 1842/66 is directed against the order dated 2nd September, 1966 (Annex : 'C') which is sought to be declared as without lawful authority.
4. During the pendency of this Writ Petition MLO. 241 embodying more stringent provisions for recovery of loan was promulgated, and the Assistant Registrar thought it fit to make use of the same. Accordingly two other immovable properties of the petitioner were attached and a proclamation dated 30th July, 1973 issued by the Assistant Registrar with powers as Collector, under para. 6 of the MLO, fixing 31st August, 1973 as the date for disposal thereof through auction.
The petitioner, in the first instance moved a civil miscellaneous application in WP No, 1842/66 for stay of the auction which was disposed of on 30th August, 1973 with the observations that he may agitate the matter through a fresh writ petition. Consequently, be brought Writ Petition No, 1746/73, in which on 5th September, 1973, status quo was ordered to be maintained with the result that the Departmental Authorities could not go ahead with the auction of the properties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main ground urged on behalf of .The petitioner is that the determination of his liability of Rs, 12,604/90 was made without giving him an opportunity of being heard and as the proceedings under the Ordinance XIV of 1966 are the foundation for further action under MLO. 241, the basic order being void the entire superstructure would suffer from the same infirmity.
6. It is to be seen that in the course of the litigation commenced through W. P. No, 1842/66, by means of Punjab Ordinance III of 1972, the West Pakistan Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 was- amended and section 9-A added therein whereby revisional jurisdiction has been conferred on the Government against the decision or award of the Registrar and so also on the latter against an Assistant Registrar. When countenanced with the provision, the learned! Counsel for the petitioner made a request that he would first avail of the remedy by way of revision. He, however, expressed an apprehension that on disposal of the writ petition, the stay order dated 5th September, 1973 shall stand vacated and the Departmental Authorities would auction the properties. Respondent No, 1 and the representative of the Bank, who are present in the Court, however, state at the bar that till the decision of the revision by the revisional authority, the properties in question shall not be put to auction, provided the revision petition is filed within six weeks of this order. Obviously, this undertaking would operate as a stay order against the Departmental Authorities.
7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel, the petitioner may seek his remedy by way of a revision. It will be open to him to raise any contention before the revisional authority in accordance with law.
8. With these observations both the writ petitions stand disposed of with no order as to costs.