' This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No3671 of 1994 and W.P. No,5235 of 1994 as a common questions of law arise therein.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner had obtained some loan from Pasban Cooperative Finance Corporation, a Society which has since been declared to be an undesirable Cooperative Society under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992. The dispute between the petitioner and the said Society was referred by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies exercising the powers of the Registrar to a panel of Arbitrators one of whom was a nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Arbitrators announced their award on 16-8-1993 and by majority held that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs,52,16,112 to respondent No,3. This award was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under section 54-A read with section 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 which, however, was not entertained by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide his order, dated 18-1- 1994 who was of the view that as the Deputy Registrar while acting as Registrar had referred the case to his nominee, the application/appeal under section 54-A/56 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 would lie before the Deputy Registrar and not before the Registrar.
3. Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 to contend that against an award made by the Arbitrators, an application can be filed before the Registrar who has the power to set aside the award or to pass an order referring the dispute back to the Arbitrators. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that there was nothing in the said section which prohibits exercise of this power in case a reference has been made by the Deputy Registrar exercising the power of Registrar.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General as also Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 are unable to defend the view which prevailed with the Registrar for not entertaining the appeal. They have however, urged that the application filed by the petitioner was not competent for the reason that as nominee of the Registrar was one of the Arbitrators, the case could be covered by the exception to section 54-A which ordains that no such application can be made if the Registrar himself was one of the Arbitrators. The other objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,3 is that as certificate as contemplated by first proviso to section 54-A has already been issued, the power to modify or setting aside the award cannot be exercised by the Registrar.
5. In reply, Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the exception contained in section 54-A is applicable only in case where the Registrar himself has acted as an Arbitrator and not when the Arbitrator is one of the nominee of the Registrar.
6. So far as the ground which prevailed with the Registrar for not entertaining the application under section 54-A, it is, on the face of it, fallacious. There is nothing in section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act which takes away jurisdiction of the Registrar to entertain an application under section 54-A where reference to arbitration has been made by the Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar.
7. However, the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No,3 merits serious consideration. It cannot be doubted on the plain language of section 54-A that if the Registrar is one of the Arbitrators then no application under section 54-A would lie. The rational behind this provision is quite apparent. If the Registrar himself has delivered the award, he cannot obviously be called upon to set it aside. The position, however, appears to be different when the Registrar himself does not act as an arbitrator but instead nominates another person to do so. The nomination by the Registrar of a person to exercise the powers on his behalf does not invest him with the status of a Registrar.
8. 'Registrar' has been defined in section 2(f) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 as meaning a person appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Cooperative Societies under this Act.
Under section 4 of the Act, the power to appoint Registrar vests in the Provincial Government.
Reading the two provisions together, it is obvious that the nominee of a Registrar cannot be considered to be a Registrar. It is also to be seen that section 4 contemplates appointment of a single Registrar for the Province or any part thereof in which no other person can, as such, be appointed. On the other hand, the powers of a Registrar may be conferred upon one or more persons by the Government but that conferment does not invest the person with the status of a Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Furthermore, Registrar by virtue of his appointment can exercise all the powers available under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 without any further formalities but the person on whom powers have been conferred only enjoys those powers which are specifically conferred upon him. This brings into bold relief the distinction between the Registrar and the person exercising the powers of a Registrar.
9. The view which I have taken is supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hafiz ud Din v. Mian Khadim Hussain, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and another PLD 1965 Lah.
439 where a distinction was drawn between the Collector and a person exercising the powers of a Collector.
10. Another principle which must be kept in view while interpreting provisions like section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 which is beneficial in nature is that even if two interpretations were possible, one that advances the remedy must be adopted. I am clearly, therefore, of the opinion that the Registrar was not correct in holding that the application under section 54-A was not maintainable before him.
11. The objection raised by the respondent's learned counsel that as a certificate in terms of section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 has already been issued, the application under section 54-A was not competent requires factual inquiry and cannot be decided in the present proceedings. If so advised, respondent No,3, may raise this objection before the Registrar to whom the matter is being remanded.
12. Before parting with this case, it is also necessary to take notice of an objection raised by Syed Najaf Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No,3, as to the maintainability of this petition, which is two-fold, firstly, that the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was appealable under section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act to the Government and as that remedy has not been availed, this petition would not lie and, secondly, that even if the order is not appealable still it was open to revision under section 64-A and, therefore, this petition, in any case, was not competent.
13. So far as the applicability of section 64 is concerned, on the plain language of the provision, it contemplates appeals only against the order passed under subsection (3) of section 54-A and not under any other part of the section and, therefore, the petitioner could not have invoked section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. As regards the remedy of revision, it may be seen that the impugned order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on the face of it, is totally without jurisdiction and as such the mere non-filing of revision under section 64-A cannot be taken as a bar in the way of the petitioner in invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore a revision of the nature contemplated by section 64-A is not an equally efficacious remedy so as to render the present proceedings not maintainable.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the application under section 54-A, of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, who shall proceed to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties.
' No order as to costs.