' K.A. GHANI, J.--By this petition filed under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner prayed for the grant of the following reliefs:- "(I) Direction to respondent No,2 to act in accordance with provision of Trade Organization Ordinance of 1961 and to and supervise the election of respondent No,3 after frs election rules.
(2) Cost of the petition.
(3) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit an proper in the circumstances of the case."
' The case of the petitioners briefly stated is that the responde No,4 is an association registered under the Companies Act and to licence was granted under section 3 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961. The area of operation of the said Association ha been divided into two regions.
Sind and Baluchistan forms one regio while Punjab and Frontier forms the other region. The Association h its Executive Committee whereas each region has its Regional Committe ' The petitioner who is engaged in the business of exhibition cinematographic films and owns a cinema house at Karachi is,a memb of the Association. He has remained President of the Association a also of its, Karachi Region on different occasions. After giving detal of composition of the, Executive Committee of the Association and th the Regional office-bearers to be elected each year, in the petition has been stated (para. 6):- "That the election of the Executive Committee of the responde No,4 was last held in Ma$.Ch, 1977 for one year and thereaft no elections were held so far. The last election of responde No,2 i,e, Regional Committee of Karachi Region was held August, 1984 although under Articles it should have been he by 15th February. The results were announced on 20th August, 1984. The election being for one year term of the present Committee expired on 15-2-1985. Similarly, the election for the year 1985 should have been held by 15th February, 1985 but the elections were not held and no election programme was received by the petitioner and other members. However, on 17-9-1985, a fake result was announced and 14 persons were announced to have been elected unopposed including one employee of the cinema namely Samiuddin who was not eligible to be member. The petitioner and other members filed complaint to the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Association who called for an explanation."
' The petitioner further pleaded that the election of the respondent No,2 for the year 1986 should have been held by 15th February, 1985 as provided under Article 49 of the Association. However, the elections for the year though scheduled to be held on 9-7-1986 intimations to the members were not given through post but the same were announced through publication in daily 'JANG' dated 20th June, 1986. Annexure C-1, to the petition shows that at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the said Association held on 24-4-1986, the following schedule of elections of the office-bearers of the Region (Sind and Baluchistan) was approved:- "(1) Nomination papers for all posts (i,e, Chairman, two Vice-Chairmen, eleven members of the Regional Executive Committee and four members of the Central Executive Committee) to be filed latest by.............................. 28th June, 1986 (Saturday) upto 4-00 p.m.
(2) Last date for withdrawals 1st July, 1986 (Tuesday) upto 4-00 p.m.
(3) Scrutiny of Nomination Papers 2nd and 3rd July, 1986 (Wednesday and Thursday).
(4) Scrutinisers to submit report to Executive Committee on 5th July, 1986 (Saturday) at 12-00 noon.
(5) Executive Committee Meeting on 5th July, 1986 (Saturday) at 2-00 p.m.
(6) Elections on 9th July, 1986 (Wednesday) from 10-00 a . m. To 3-00 p.m.
(7) Annual General Meeting 10th July, 1986 (Thursday) at 11-00 a.m."
2. According to the petitioner serious irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the Association in the elections scheduled to be held on 9-7-1986 and since the Director, Trade Organisations the respondent No,2, made no response to the representations he has been compelled to invoke the constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. This petition was presented on 7th July, 1986 and was placed in Court for katcha Peshi on 8th July, 1986.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No,2 Director, Trade Organisations is legally bound to watch and supervise the elections scheduled to be held on 9-7- 1986 of the officearers of the Region. In support of his arguments reliance was placed section 9(2)
(d) of the Trade Organisations Ordinance (No,XLV) of 1961. The provisions of subsection 2(d) alongwith subsection (1) of section 9 of the said Ordinance, thus being relevant are reproduced below: - "9. Registered trade organizations to be subject to the control of Director:- . (1) All acts and proceedings of a registered Trade Organization shall be subject to the control of the Director and the affairs of such trade organization shall be managed and conducted in such manner as the Director may, from time to time, direct.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in the articles or memorandum of a registered trade organization and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing ,provision, the Director may----
(d) watch and supervise, or cause to be watched and supervised, any election held by or for the purpose of electing persons to the Executive Committee or other body including a regional, circle or Zonal body of any such Trade Organization."
4. The proposition cannot be disputed that discretion conferred by statute upon the Director may be exercised where he is reasonably satisfied that the matter is unsuitable to be left for adjudication by the A domestic tribunal created under section 12 of the Ordinance as has been held by the Full Bench (majority decision) of this Court reported as Maher Alvi v. Pakistan PLD 1980 Kar.
609. In the cited case the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Zafar Hussain Mirza, as he then was) held:- "It cannot be denied that the trade organizations placed under the control of the Director under the Ordinance of 1961 are self-governing organizations and the intention underlying the conferment of supervisory and regulatory powers in that these powers are to be exercised in exceptional cases in the public interest organizations recognized and registered. As rightly pointed out, therefore, these powers are not invokable for the redress of individual disputes which can more appropriately be adjudicated by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under section 12 unless the Director is reasonably satisfied that the matter was unsuitable to be left for such adjudication by the domestic Tribunal because it involved wider issues."
(The underlines are made by me)
' In the light of the above principle the grievances advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner at the time of hearing of this petition may be examined.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance of the provisions of subsection 2(d) of section 9 of the Ordinance submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to direct the respondent No,2 to watch and supervise, the elections scheduled to be held on 9-7-1986 for the reason that he has failed to perform functions enjoined upon him by law and that he even failed to respondent in spite of representations made.
' The learned counsel at the hearing then submitted that the necessity for the Director/respondent No,2 to exercise the powers conferred upon him under section 9(2)(d) has arisen as the respondents Nos.7 and 14 are not eligible to participate in the elections and offer themselves for being elected to any office as they are not members of the Association and for the reason that the annual general meeting of the Association ought to have been held by 15-2-1986.
' The arguments advanced by the learned counsel have to be considered in the light of the principles referred above laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Maher Alvi v. Pakistan/ibid. The question, therefore, arises if the grievances advanced by the learned counsel are of such nature which require the Director/respondent No,2 to exercise the discretionary powers conferred upon him by section 9(2)(d) of the Ordinance. At the very outset it would be observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner though argued that the respondents Nos.7 and 14 are not eligible to offer themselves as candidates to be elected as office-bearers yet in the petition filed in this Court no prayer has been made either challenging their eligibility or nomination nor there is anything on the record to show that prior to the filing of this petition any objection was ever raised to the filing of nomination papers by these two respondents. No such grievance was even communicated to the Director/respondent No,2. The objections thus raised against the candidature of respondent No,7 or 14 are in the nature of individual grievances which could more appropriately be raised by approaching the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under section 12(1) of the said Ordinance of 1961, which for sake of convenience and reference, being relevant is reproduced below:- "12. Restriction on suits against trade organizations.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in the articles or memorandum of a registered trade organization, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted or commenced against such registered trade organization questioning the validity or propriety of any act or proceeding of such trade organization or of the Executive Committee or other body thereof, or the constitution of, or election or appointment to such committee or body, by any member of such trade organization or by, any member of, any other trade organization unless such member or other trade organization has made an application, accompanied by such fee not less than one thousand rupees as may be prescribed by rules, referring the matter to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted for the purpose of deciding such references by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry registered under the Act purchase of a licence and such Arbitration Tribunal has given its decision or award thereon."
4.(ii) As to the argument of the learned counsel that respondents Nos.7 and 14 cannot claim to be eligible to be elected on the basis of clause 4 of the Circular, dated 11-6-1986 issued by the Executive Committee of the Association, adopted at its meeting held on 24-4-1986 (Annexure C-1 to the petition) as the said clause is ultra vires of the Articles of Association, it may be observed that in the petition no relief has been claimed challenging the vires of the said clause No,4 or c for striking it down. Here it may be noted that the said respondents admittedly filed their nominations on or before the notified date and even at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers no objection was taken to the same.
' The objection now raised as above in the circumstances cannot be entertained in these proceedings.
5. As regards the last objection raised that the meeting was not held before 15th February, 1986 as provided by Article 49 of the Association, it may be observed that such an alleged irregularity would not justify invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the reason that period prescribed in Article 49 is merely directory in nature. No penalty is provided for not holding the meeting within the prescribed time. It is not denied that the date mentioned in Article 49 was not adhered to by Association even on previous occasions.
6. No other ground at the hearing of this petition for Katcha Peshi was urged.
7. For the aforesaid reasons this petition being without any merit is dismissed in limine.
' The above are the reasons for short order passed on 8th July, 1986.