1. SALEEM AKTHAR, J: ----The petitioner claims to be a member of the respondent No.4 Society and has challenged the legality of the order dated 1-4-1986 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the respondents Nos.5 to 1 4 have been permitted to contest the election of office-bearers of the respondent No.4 Society which was scheduled to be held on 2-5-1976 under the orders of the High Court in petition No.887/63. The petitioner has sought the following relies: "It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned order dated 1-5-86 and the public notices dated 8-4-86 of Dawn and Jang amending the final list of candidates dated 30-3-86 as without lawful authority and also be pleased to issue a writ against the respondents 1 to 4 in the nature of quo-warranto to hold the elections of the Society on the basis of the final list dated 30-3-86 excluding the names of respondents 5 to 14, and/or grant any other relief/reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances and nature of the case".
2. On complaint made by the petitioner, and other members of the Society the management and affairs of the respondent No.4 were taken over by the respondent No.1 under order dated 13-11-1983 which was published in the gazette dated Nov.16,1983. At that time the respondents Nos. 5 to 14 were the office-bearers and members of the managing committee. This action was taken under section 7 of the Sind Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982 and a managing committee for respondent No.4 was appointed which was to conduct the affairs of the Society and perform its duty subject to overall supervision of the Authority. The respondents Nos.5 to 14 challenged this order in petition No.887/83 which was disposed of by the following order:- "This petition is directed against the order dated 15-11-1983, passed by respondent No.1 superseding the managing committee of petitioner's society, which was elected for a specified period. In normal course, the whole committee members would have retired by 1985. It seems that upon CMA No.2096/84, a Division Bench of this Court passed above order dated 22-1-1986 ordering of holding of fresh election by respondent No.3. It appears that the above election could not have been held as one Umar Bux filed Constitution Petition No.D--355/86 in which he obtained a stay order against the holding of the election.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition was that the impugned order dated 15-11-1983 was passed by the respondent 1 without any show-cause notice and without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, the above order was without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the case of Province of Sind v. Public at large (reported in PLD 1988 Shariat Appellate Bench SC 138). Even if we were to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that we cannot reinstate the petitioner's old management of which terms of office would have expired by 1985. In our view, the petition may be disposed of in terms of the above order dated 12-1-1986 with the modification that if the stay is vacated in C.P.No.D-355/1986 or the petition is dismissed, respondent 3 will cause the holding of the election within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of vacating the stay or dismissal of the aforesaid petition, namely C.P.
4. No.355 of 1986, whichever is earlier; Before this order was passed in terms of the interim order granted in the afore-stated petition the Administrator of the Society issued a notice dated 27-2-1986 notifying that the election shall be held on 2-5-86. The respondents Nos.5 to 14 seem to have applied to the respondent No.1 for permission to participate in the election. The respondent No.1 passed the following order on 1-4- 1986.
5. "I am directed to refer your application dated 25th March, 1986 on the subject noted above. The Government of Sind is pleased to accord permission to all the members of previous management of C.P. & Berar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Karachi for contesting the forthcoming elections of the Society as required under Section 14-A of Sind Cooperative Housing Authority (Amendment)
6. Act, 1985".
7. The petitioner has challenged this order as without lawful authority and seeks a relief that the respondents Nos.5 to 14 be debarred from participating in the election till such time the inquiry report has been submitted and they have been exonerated of the charges levelled against them.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and they have stated that so far no inquiry report has been submitted. It therefore, seems that although charges of embezzlement and mismanagement were made against respondents No.5 to 14 and the inquiry had also been ordered, the Inquiry Officer has not submitted his report. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under' Section 14 of the Ordinance IV of 1985 the respondents Nos.5 to 14 cannot be permitted or declared to be eligible to contest the election unless they have been exonerated. The admitted position is that respondents Nos.5 to 14 were members of previous management which has been removed but so far the Inquiry Officer has not given his finding either holding them responsible for mismanagement or exonerating them from the charge. Section 14(A) of the Ordinance imposes a bar of two years on persons who have been removed or, are disqualified to hold an office of the Society under the Sind Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 or the Rules made thereunder. Excepting the fact that the respondents Nos.5 to 14 have been removed nothing has been pointed out to show that any bar as contemplated by the Sind Cooperative Societies Act is attached to them. In these circumstance the respondents Nos.5 to 14 would have been debarred from participating in the election for a period of two years. However, this provision does not seem to be relevant because: on 12-12-1985 by the Cooperative Housing Authority (Amendment) Act IV of 1985, a new section 14-A was inserted which reads as follows:- "14-A Except with the permission of the Government, no person who was an office-bearer in the Society and immediately before its taking over under section 6 shall be eligible to contest election under subsection 1 of section 14".
9. Undoubtedly the elections notified were to be held under section 14 (1) of the Sind Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982. The newly inserted section 14-A provides that all those persons who were office-bearers in the society immediately before taking over can contest the election only if permission has been granted by the Government. Therefore, the Government is empowered A to grant permission to such office-bearers who were holding the office immediately before supersession or removal. In the present case the permission has been accorded by the respondent No.]. The only ground to challenge is that the inquiry report has not yet been submitted. The supersession has even otherwise lasted more than contemplated by the provision of law. Mr. Zaidi has pointed out to an order passed in appeal No.264/84 by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Karachi, in which moinuddin, Arif Mohammad Khan and the administrator have been ordered to deposit Rs. 31,700 to the Society According to Mr. Zaidi this is a case in which the respondents are proved to have embezzled this amount.
10. A persual of this order shows that Rs. 31,700 were withdrawn as fee for l the advocate for prosecuting writ petition by which the order of supersession was challenged. As this payment was not in accordance with the permission or with prior permission, the amount so withdraw was ordered to be refunded to the I Society. There is no finding nor any document has been produced to show that this amount had been embezzled by these respondents. No other ground has been pressed to challenge the impugned order. In these circumstances in our view the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegality, nor can it be said to have been passed without lawful authority.
11. The petition is therefore, dismissed.
12. M.Y.H./U-54/K