' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has called in question order dated 22-8-1984 passed by respondent No,1.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was employed as Manager in Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank and was posted at Karachi. The Bank reported some losses to the Department caused by respondent No,4. The Deputy Registrar, Lahore Division, Lahore accordingly referred the matter under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act and Rule 33 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927, (herein referred to be Act, 1927) to Arbitration and appointed Qureshi Muhammad Islam, Asstt: Registrar as his nominee vide order dated 1-4-1978. The respondent No,4 impugned this order through an appeal. The same was ultimately dismissed by the then Secretary, Cooperative Department vide order dated 30-5-1981. Thereafter the order dated 1-4-1978 was partially modified.
The result was that instead of Qureshi Islam Ali, Hidayat Ullah Qureshi, Circle Registrar was appointed nominee of the Registrar to adjudicate the dispute. This order was again modified. The result was that respondent No,3 was appointed as nominee of the Registrar. The respondent No,4 once again filed an appeal before respondent No,1, who accepted the same vide order dated 22- 8-1984. The present petition is directed against this order. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. In the meanwhile respondent No,4 died and his heirs were impleaded. They alone have contested the petition while the others were proceeded ex parte.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that respondent No,4 challenged the order of respondent No,2 referring the matter to arbitration and the appeal was dismissed by the then Secretary, Cooperative Department vide order dated 30-5-1981. It is argued that for this reason the respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter because he cannot set aside judgment of his predecessor. It is added that the respondent No,4 challenged only order dated 27-8-1983, therefore, reference could not be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for heirs of respondent No,4 argued that the impugned order of respondent No,1 is fully justified under sections 64 and 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, more particularly under section 64-A. It is added that the proceedings were initiated against the said respondent without basis and in fact there was no dispute referable under section 54 of Act, 1925. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the Government is competent all the time to set aside, withdraw or cancel its previous orders. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the case of Muhammad Shibli Khan v. Mr. I.U. Khan and others PLD 1976 Lah.
26. The learned counsel has also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petition is barred by laches as the order is dated 27-8-1984 while the petition was filed on 12-1-1985.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that respondent No,4 filed an appeal. The same was treated and disposed of as such. Therefore, the argument that impugned order of respondent No,1 is fully justified under section 64-A is an afterthought. It is added that the earlier order of the Secretary to the extent of reference of the dispute for arbitration was final.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record, relevant provisions of law and precedents. The order of referring the dispute is dated 1-4-1978. The respondent No,4 attacked the same on number of grounds, noted by the then Secretary, Government of Punjab, Cooperative Department in his order dated 30-5-1981 but he concluded as under:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it would amount to pre-emption on the jurisdiction of the Nominee if the facts are discussed at this forum. It is for the Nominee to decide the dispute in accordance with the facts and law by affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties to plead their cause. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was well within his right to refer the dispute to the Nominee and he was not bound to hear the parties before referring the matter to Registrar's Nominee for arbitration."
' The perusal of the impugned order shows that same grounds were once again raised before respondent No,1 in the appeal against the order dated 27-8-1983. The question arises whether the respondent No,1 had any jurisdiction to upset the decision of his predecessor. In order to find the reply to this legal proposition we have to refer to the original order of reference dated 30-5-1981. It is clear from the text of the order that it contains following two parts:-
(i) Reference of dispute between the Punjab Provincial Bank and respondent No,4 to arbitration under section 54 of Act, 1925;
(ii) Appointment of Qureshi Muhammad Islam as nominee of the Registrar.
6. This order was modified vide order dated, 18-3-1982. The modification was only as to the second part i,e. Change of nominee from Qureshi Islam Ali to Hidayat Ullah Qureshi. This order was once again partially modified by the order dated 27-8-1963. The modification was only in respect of the later part. The result was that instead of Hidayat Ullah Qureshi, Muhammad Bashir respondent No,3 was appointed as Registrar's nominee to adjudicate the dispute. It was this order which was challenged by respondent No,4 before respondent No,1. It is clear from the above resume that the respondent No,4 challenged the whole order dated 1-4-1978 but his appeal, was dismissed by the then Secretary, Cooperative Department vide order dated 30-5-1988. This order was not impugned by the said respondents in any forum. In this way it became final. The order dated 27-8-1983 only partially modified the original order dated 1-4-1978. This was, as noted A earlier to the extent of Registrar's nominee. Therefore, the respondent No,4 could not have legally challenged the first part of the order which pertained as to reference because earlier decision of the Secretary, Cooperative Department dated 30-5-1981 had become final. This way the first part could not have been challenged. This is not all. The same grounds as urged in earlier appeal were reiterated by respondent No,4, therefore, the same could not be looked into by respondent No,1, who was neither appellate authority of his successor nor was vested any power of review.
7. The argument that power of review is always available to the Government in all the matters is too sweeping a statement and cannot be B accepted. The case of Muhammad Shibli Khan does not advance the case on behalf of respondent No,4. Similarly, the respondent No,1 has no authority to revise the order of his predecessor.
8. The learned counsel for contesting respondents tried to justify the order while referring to section 64-A of Act, 1925 but the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that respondent No,4 had filed an appeal and the same was treated as revision, therefore, reference to section 64-A is irrelevant. It is not possible to accept that every time the nominee of the Registrar, was changed, the whole matter will become open and can be challenged in appeal. The power of the Government is also limited and once it is exercised it C is end, of the matter. There is no legal sanction to make repeated representations, revision or petitions. I am fortified in my view by the judgment in the case of Govt. Of Pakistan v. Bashir Ahmad Khan (PLD 1985 SC 309).
9. Now coming to the preliminary objection that the petition is barred by laches. The impugned order is dated 27-8-1983 while this Constitutional petition was filed on 12-1-1985. The petitioner did not take abnormal time to impugne the D order of respondent No,1. The departments, autonomous bodies are likely to take in such matters 4 to 6 months to file a writ petition. Moreso when they know that there is no limitation prescribed by the law, therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated E 22-8-1984 of respondent No,1 is set aside as illegal and without jurisdiction. The matter shall be deemed pending for adjudication before respondent No,3.