' The petitioner-Society is a duly registered Co-operative Society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. This Society was formed in 1961, in order to arrange and provide for residential accommodation to its members and to purchase and sell residential plots, etc. The Society has its own bye-laws and is governed by the same in the matter of sale, purchase and surrender of plots, etc.
2. Mst. Shamim Afza, respondent No.4 herein, became a member of the petitioner-Society in 1964 and thereafter she purchased a plot of land bearing No.76, measuring 20 Marlas located in Ittehad Colony, Multan Road, Lahore for a sum of Rs.8,000. The purchase took place through a registered sale-deed dated 1-6-1965. After the execution of the sale-deed the possession of the plot was also delivered to respondent No. 4.
' It has been alleged that the petitioner-Society wanted the exemption of the land included in Ittehad Colony from the proposed scheme of the then Lahore Improvement Trust called as Iqbal Town Scheme, Multan Road, Lahore. The Trust was agreeable to the exemption and at one stage it transpired that as if the Trust had practically refused the requisite exemption. In the circumstances on 25-5-1969, respondent No.4 submitted an application informing the petitioner-Society that she wanted to surrender the plot. The application of respondent No.4 was considered in a meeting of the Executive Committee of the petitioner-Society and it was allowed according to bye-laws. Lots were drawn for the re-disposal of Plot No.76. As per results of the draw of lots Dr. Fazal Muhammad respondent No.5 was declared successful. He paid the full price of the plot. Possession whereof was delivered to him. Thereafter he raised construction on that plot. The profit which accrued on account of re-sale of the plot in favour of Dr. Fazal Muhammad was shared equally by the Society and respondent No.4 in accordance with bye-laws.
3. After some time, the Lahore Improvement Trust exempted the area in question from being included in Iqbal Town Scheme. Respondent No.4 thereafter turned round and preferred a claim for the plot in question. She filed a suit in January 1970 against the petitioner-Society but after some time she withdrew the suit unconditionally. Then on 3-11-1970 she moved an application for arbitration under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. On her application Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti was appointed as Registrar's nominee, who through notice dated 16-3- 1971, intimated that the parties had failed to exercise their option for nomination of their arbitrators and, therefore, he was legally competent to proceed as a sole arbitrator under rule 32 of the Co- operative Societies Rules, 1927. The said arbitrator after examining the relevant records and after recording the evidence adduced before him gave an award of the petitioner-Society on 27-4-1971 vide award Annex. 'B'.
4. Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal under section 56 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which was heard and disposed of by the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar. The said officer dismissed the appeal on 19-11-1971, vide order Annex. 'G'.
Subsequently, respondent No.4 again filed a civil suit challenging the award and the order passed in appeal. The suit was contested by the petitioner-Society and it was ultimately dismissed on 23- 9-1972, vide judgment Annex. 'D'. Still being not satisfied, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition.
Her revision was heard by the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Co-operative Department. After hearing both the parties and examining the records, the learned Secretary dismissed the revision vide his detailed order dated 29-8-1975. Subsequently, a review application was also filed by respondent No.4 but the Secretary dismissed the same observing that there was no provision of review in the Co-operative Societies Act.
5. In early 1977, a Sub-Inspector of the Co-operative Societies inspected the records relating to the case of respondent No.4. Subsequently, he directed the petitioner-Society to cause the production of the records in Office of the Deputy Registrar at 13-Jail Road, Lahore. The entire record was produced in the said office and the Superintendent of the Deputy Registrar took into his custody the original application of respondent No.4 against receipt dated 4-3-1977, Annex. 'K'.
' On 15-4-1977, the Deputy Registrar, passed an order conveyed to the petitioner-Society vide endorsement No.2108-13/DRL/B, dated 15-4-1977, appointing Syed Munawar Ali Shah, respondent No.3, retired Assistant Registrar, as arbitrator for the decision of the dispute relating to the re-sale of Plot No.76 to Dr. Fazal Muhammad. On 19-4-1977, the said Syed Munawar Ali Shah sent a notice to the petitioner-Society requiring it to appoint its arbitrator. Thereupon the Society informed the Registrar's nominee that the matter had already been finally adjudicated upon and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter again. Soon thereafter the petitioner-Society filed the present constitutional petition assailing the order dated 15-4-1977 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, appointing Syed Munawar Ali Shah, respondent No.3, as Registrar's nominee for decision of the dispute relating to the re-sale of Plot No.76 to respondent No.5. The vires of the proceedings taken pursuant to the order dated 15-4-1977, have also been called in question through the present writ petition.
6. It has been mainly urged on behalf of the petitioner-Society that under section 57 of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1925, finality is attached to an award which has been upheld in appeal under section 56 ibid, subject to the decision of the revisional authority, if any, and by virtue of section 64-AA ibid, an order passed in revision under section 64-A, by the Provincial Government is also final and conclusive and is not liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue Court. It has further been urged that there is no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 or any other law allowing a second arbitration in regard to a dispute which has already been decided through arbitration and the appeal and revision against which decision have already failed.
7. In this case, unfortunately no written statement has been filed by respondent No.4 or any other respondent. During the course of arguments, respondents Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.5 have supported the contentions of the petitioner-Society. It has, however, been maintained on behalf of respondent No.4 that Provincial Government could competently order the reopening of a dispute about which it was satisfied that the same has not been decided in accordance with law. No provision of law of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, could be quoted by respondent No.4 to support this contention. It has, however, been urged on behalf of respondent No.4 that under section 71 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, the Provincial Government could provide for the suspension or removal of members of the Executive Committee of a Society and of the appointment of a person to administer the affairs of the Society and in that behalf it could examine the records of any case dealt with by the Society and to pass appropriate orders in regard thereto.
' Section 71 ibid, pertains to the rules-making powers of the Provincial Government. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has not been able to cite any rule made by the Government under section 71 ibid whereby an award which has already attained finality could be set aside and the dispute could be again referred for fresh arbitration. As a matter of fact, no such rule could be made, because rules are in the nature of subordinate or delegated legislation and there can be no such subordinate legislation, which is repugnant to the provisions of the principal law itself. Finality is attached to an award under section 57 and section 64-A A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and, therefore, no rule could be framed to provide otherwise.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also argued that sale of Plot No.76 in favour of respondent No.4 took place through a registered sale-deed and after the execution and registration of the sale-deed, the transaction attained finality. The plot could only be resold in favour of respondent No.5 through a sale-deed to be executed by respondent No.4 and that the Society had no power of jurisdiction to re-sell the plot, which has already been sold in favour of respondent No. 4.
' This argument has been considered. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that under the bye-laws of the petitioner-Society as also in accordance with the terms of the sale-deed executed by the Society in favour of respondent No.4, she could surrender the plot which could be resold by the Society and the profit, if any, was to be shared equally by the Society and respondent No.4.
' Admittedly the respondent No.4 herself submitted an application desiring to surrender the plot, pursuant to which the Society acted in accordance with its bye-laws and resold the plot in favour of respondent No.5. The amount of profit was shared equally by the petitioner-Society and respondent No.4. Two specimen of the sale-deeds have been produced. Condition No.1 of the, specimen sale-deed is that the vendee personally was not competent to re-sell the land in favour of any person and that in case he wanted to sell that land he could relinquish the land in favour of the Society and the Society was competent to re-sell the same to one of its members and in such eventuality after payment of the original price to the first vendee, the profit, if any, was to be shared equally by the Society and the first vendee.
9. As a result of careful analysis of the circumstances of this case, as detailed above, and in the light of the contents of the provision of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1952 and those of the bye- laws of the petitioner-Society read in conjunction with the conditions of the specimen sale-deed, I have come to a positive conclusion that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.9 in regard to disposal of Plot No.76, which has already been finally decided within the meaning of section 57 and section 64-AA of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, could not lawfully be reopened and legally there could be no second reference to arbitration. In this view of the matter the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be without jurisdiction, illegal and of no legal effect. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.