' Petitioner has called in question vires of the order passed by respondent No.1 on 14-5-1987, whereby the revision petitions of the petitioner pending adjudication before the Industrial Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lahore were transferred to Deputy Registrar (Farming), Office of the Registrar Co-operative Societies.
' Briefly stated the facts resulting into the present writ petition are that respondent No.2 in the year 1972/73 had advanced certain loans to petitioner No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to 8, for the recovery of which arbitration proceedings were initiated against the petitioners as contemplated by section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. Three awards were announced in the year, 1976 by the arbitrators in this regard. Petitioners feeling aggrieved with the awards preferred three revision petitions before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which were entrusted to respondent No.3 for adjudication. Respondent No.2, moved an application to respondent No.1, under section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, seeking transfer of those revision petitions by expressing lack of confidence in respondent No.3, for reasons specified herein. After hearing the parties respondent No.1 vide order dated 14-5-1987, accepted the transfer application and transferred the revision petitions to Deputy Registrar (Farming) Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies which has been impugned in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to transfer the matter; and, even, on merits no case for transfer had been made out. I have examined section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, text of which for the sake of ready reference is being reproduced herein below in extenso:- "64-A. Power of Provincial Government and the Registrar to call for proceedings of subordinate officer and to pass order thereon. The Provincial Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it shall appear to the Provincial Government or the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, or annulled or reversed, the Provincial Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as to it or him may seem fit."
' A bare perusal of this statutory provision reveals that the Registrar as well as the Provincial Government has the power to examine and interfere in an appropriate case concerning legality and propriety of A decisions or orders and regularity of any proceedings or inquiry ' The expression "any proceedings" encompasses much wider connotation on the legal fabric and is comprehensive enough to cover all conceivable stages in an action under the law, from its commencement up to the execution of the judgment. In this context, I would like to place reliance on the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344: "The term 'proceedings' is a very comprehensive term, and, generally speaking, means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right, and hence it necessarily embraces the requisite steps by which judicial action is invoked. A 'proceeding' would include every step taken towards the further progress of a cause in Court or before a Tribunal, where it may be pending. It is the step towards the objective to be achieved, say for instance the judgment in a pending suit. The proceeding commences with the first step by which the machinery of the law is put into motion in order to take cognizance of the case. It is indeed comprehensive expression and includes all possible steps in the action under the law, from its commencement to the execution of the judgment."
' Therefore, I am of the view that the jurisdiction conferred under section 64-A is both revisional as well as supervisory and superintending in its nature vis-a-vis any proceedings or inquiry under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925; and inter alia includes the power-duty in appropriate cases to pass orders in the nature of the order being impugned in this petition. Power to transfer cases warranting adjudication of rights between the litigant parties, from one person to another, in cases of bias etc. Would be necessary in the interest of justice, in view of the maxim that justice should not only be done but should seem to be done. Denial of such an inherent power or duty would create unresolvable paradoxical situations.
3. Finally it is contended that the object of transfer is to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the case. This contention of learned counsel stands belied by the last sentence of the impugned order wherein it has been categorically directed that the matter should be decided within a fortnight; thus repells the apprehension of the petitioners.
4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed in the furtherance of the interest of justice. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.