' The Engineers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Lahore has filed this Constitutional Petition challenging the orders dated 15-3-1989 and 12-4-1989 of the Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No,1) and the cognizance taken by him of the application filed by Syed Naseer Ahmad, respondent No, 2 under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
2. It is stated that Syed Naseer Ahmad respondent No,2 was neither qualified to be a member of the petitioner Society nor was taken as a member in accordance with Bye-laws of the Society and the previous management had illegally allotted a plot to him in the Society. As per decision of the Executive Committee a show-cause notice dated 7-3-1989 was issued to him to explain as to why the allotment in his favour may not be cancelled and possession of plot resumed by the Society.
After submitting reply to the above notice Syed Naseer Ahmad filed an application before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab for arbitration proceedings. Alongwith the said application, he also moved an application under rule 32 (a) of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 for the grant of interim relief to the effect that pending adjudication of the main application the petitioners be restrained from cancelling the allotment of his plot or interfering with his possession of plot No, 185-B.
3. The Registrar granted the said application on 15-3-1989. Thereafter Syed Naseer Ahmad respondent applied to the petitioner Society for the grant of water connection etc. He also sent to it a Bank draft for Rs,2,00,000 on account of the allotment of additional land allotted to him by the Society. The latter returned the Bank draft on the plea that there was no record available of the allotment of any additional land to him. He again moved the Registrar Cooperative Societies in this behalf, who on 12-4-1989 directed the petitioner Society to receive the payment made by Syed Naseer Ahmad respondent No,2 towards the cost of additional land, pending decision of the main petition.
4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner Society that since Syed Naseer Ahmad, respondent was not eligible to become member of the Society. Under Article 8 of its Bye-laws, he could not move the Registrar Cooperative Society under Section 54. It is further stated that the Registrar Cooperative Societies acted in excess of his powers conferred on him by rule 32 (a) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in passing the impugned orders. The question of the allotment of additional land had never been the subject-matter before the Registrar but still be directed the petitioner Society to receive money from respondent No,2. It is further submitted that the show-cause notice dated 12- 4-1989 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies to the Management of the petitioner Society was absolutely uncalled for and without jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition challenging the orders dated 15-3-1989 and 12-4-1989 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies.
5. The petition has been seriously contested by Syed Naseer Ahmad, respondent No,2. It is stated that the petitioner Society had issued a letter to him confirming that he was a regular member of the Society in view of the approval given by 2/3rd membership of the council of the founder members. 11 out of 13 founder members had ratified his membership. He is a regular member of the petitioner Society since 1984. He was allotted plot in question after payment of its price in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Society. He had built a house thereon in bona fide reliance on the acts of the Society and he is now residing there. The Management Committee of the Society had allotted plots to other non-engineers also. After a period of more than 4/5 years initiation of action by the present Management merely reflects the internal differences between the previous and present management with which he was not at all concerned. The allotment of the additonal land was correctly made in his favour by the Executive Committee of the petitioner Society of 21-1- 1988. The dispute between him and the Society clearly falls within the purview of section 54, Cooperative Societies Act and as such the Registrar Cooperative Societies was possessed of complete jurisdiction to entertain his application and pass the interlocutory orders.
6. Admittedly, a dispute had arisen between the petitioner Society and Syed Naseer Ahmad about the eligibility of the latter to become its member. When the petitioner Society disputed his membership he moved the Registrar Cooperative Societies under section 54, Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Section 54 (b) provides that if any dispute touching the business of a Society arises between members or past members or persons so claiming arises it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision either by himself or his nominee. After taking cognizance of the matter in these circumstances he had passed interlocutory orders in pursuance of rule 32 (a), Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927. The said rule empowers him to make such interlocutory orders pending the decision of a dispute referred to under section 54 as appear just and convenient to him to prevent the ends of justice, being defeated.
7. The case of Syed Naseer Ahmad respondent is that he had duly applied for membership of the petitioner Society in 1984 and Khalid Habib the then Honorary General Secretary had sent an intimation in writing to him that he had been enrolled as a member of the Society and that his membership number was 615. The receipt of admission fee from him was also acknowledged. After he had made full payment of the price possession of plot No,185-B measuring two Kanals was delivered to him in the year 1988. However, in March 1989 the present management of the Society issued him a notice calling, upon him to show cause why the abovementioned plot may not be cancelled because notice he was not qualified to become a member of the Society. On receipt of the said showcause he moved the Registrar Cooperative Societies for arbitration. The Registrar granted him the, interim relief by restraining the Society from interfering with his possession over the said plot.
8. On 15th September, 1988 he had received a letter from Honorary General Secretary of the Society requiring him to make payment at the rate of Rs, 20,000 per Marla for the additional land allotted to him. In pursuance of the said letter he sent a bank draft to the Society on 11-3-1989 which was not received by the Society on which he again moved the Registrar who directed the petitioner Society to receive payment pending decision of the main petition.
9. It is stated on behalf of Syed Naseer Ahmad respondent that no exception could be taken to his eligibility to become member of the petitioner Society as 11 out of 13 founder members had ratified his membership. A copy of the letter of ratification has been appended with the written statement submitted by him.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded to the jurisdiction vesting in the Registrar Cooperative Societies to resolve the dispute between the parties. He, however, challenged the vices of interim orders passed by him. He was confronted with rule 32 (a) which empowered the Registrar to pass such interlocutory orders pending the decision of a dispute referred to him under section 54, as appeared to him to be just and convenient. But he had no answer. He also faild to satisfy me about the maintainability of writ petition against interlocutory orders. He also failed to give any satisfactory reply as to why Khalid Habib the former Honorary General Secretary of the Society was not impleaded as party to the writ petition particularly when his orders enrolling Syed Naseer Ahmad as member of the Society and making allotment of the plot to him were being challenged. He also failed to show that Sh. Khalid Habib had unauthorisedly issued (1) the letter of enrolment; (2) letter about the delivery of possession of the plot in question to Syed Naseer Ahmad, and (3) the letter requiring him to make payment in respect of the additional piece of land. Anyhow, since these matters are yet to be looked into by the Registrar, I refrain from adjudicating them in the present proceedings. As a result of the above discussion it is held that the Registrar Cooperative Societies is possessed of complete jurisdiction in the matter and was empowered to issue interlocutory orders under Rules, 32 (a), Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 and I see no reason to interfere with them. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with costs.