JAWAD HASSAN, J. Through the instant Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioners have challenged order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2/Secretary Co-operative Societies, Lahore whereby revision petition filed against orders dated 30.12.2021 and 21.12.2021 of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lahore and Convener Election Sub-Committee was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners inter alia contends that impugned orders are against the law and facts; that the impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical way as such the same are the result of mis-reading and non-reading of record; that the Respondents have allowed the objections filed by the Respondent No.6 on the ground that the Petitioners have not tilled the occupational column of nomination papers at the time of their submission; that the Petitioners fulfilled qualifications of a member of Managing Committee in terms of Rule 53 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 (the "Rules") hence they could not be knocked out from the election process.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed by the Respondents in accordance with law therefore, do not call for interference by this Court.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The whole case revolves around non-providing information in column (regarding details of occupation/profession) of nomination papers submitted by the Petitioners. It is noted that after submission, of nomination papers by the Petitioners, the Respondent No.6 filed objections before the Respondent No.4 who accepted the same vide order dated 21.12.2021 and ultimately nomination papers of the Petitioners were rejected. The Petitioners assailed aforesaid order by filing an election appeal before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lahore. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 30.12.2021 and revision petition filed there against before the Respondent No.2 under section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (the "Act") met with the same fate. It is pertinent to mention here that in all the impugned orders, the Respondents have observed that the Petitioners have not provided mandatory information regarding their profession/occupation in the nomination papers. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioners stated that the Petitioners are retired employees and they are not engaged in any professional activity or business to be considered as their source of earning or occupation hence it was not worth mentioning in their nomination papers. He further stated that the Petitioners did provide details of professions before the Respondents but they have not considered it and rejected _nomination papers in a mechanical way. The above argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioners carries no weight because in nomination papers, each and every column has to be filled either way which the Petitioners have not filled as obvious from the nomination papers of one of the Petitioner which is as follow:- From perusal of above, it is quite obvious that the Petitioners have not filled the occupational/professions column which is mandatory for its acceptance. If the argument of learned counsel for the Petitioners not important to fill occupational/ business column, is admitted as correct, even then the Petitioners had the opportunity to mention the occupation/business as "Retired Employees" in Column (3) of the nomination papers which is mandatory requirement on the basis of which their qualification or disqualification could be determined. The Petitioners in their nomination papers have failed to disclose their occupation/profession, which on objections raised by the Respondent No.6, led to rejection of their nomination papers.
7. All the impugned orders are judicious, well-reasoned and logical having been passed after taking into consideration every aspect of the case.
8. In view of above, while applying the doctrine of "Litnine Control" as developed by this Court in "Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore and others" (2019 PLD Lahore 407), this petition holds no merit hence the same is hereby dismissed in limine.