This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question an order passed by the Federal Government on 4-1-1994 whereby in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 10 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961 the Executive Committee of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FCCI) was superseded for a period of three months and an Administrator was appointed to run its affairs.
2. Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, has argued that that exercise of power under section 10 of the Ordinance is neither be naked nor arbitrary but is hedged by certain preconditions which must be shown to exist before any drastic action in the nature of supersession of an elected body is taken. Learned counsel has emphasized that the supersession of Executive Committee can only be effected if the Federal Government is of the opinion that the affairs of the trade organization are not being properly managed and in interest of trade industry to supersede it. According to the learned counsel, none of the two conditions stand satisfied in the present case as the impugned order of the Secretary does not even purport to record any findings on these two important questions.
3. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, learned Deputy Attorney-General as also Mian Saqib Nisar and Mr. S.M.
Iqbal, Advocates appearing on behalf of other respondents, who were complainants before the Secretary, have vehemently opposed this petition mainly on the ground that the term of office of Executive Committee has since long expired. In order to ensure that the forthcoming elections are held in a fair; free and impartial manner, the supersession of the Executive Committee and 'appointment of the administrator were amply justified.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the holding of elections by itself is one of the purposes for which power under section 10 of the Ordinance can be exercised. Learned counsel has, however, no objection if this Court appoints an impartial person to supervise the elections so as to ensure that the same are held in a just and fair manner.
5. From a perusal of section 10 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, it is evident that the power granted to the Federal Government for supersession of the Executive Committee and appointment of administrator is dependent upon formation of opinion that the affairs of the trade organization are not being properly managed and that the interest of trade and industry requires the supersession of the Executive Committee and appointment of administrator. While interpreting laws authorising dissolution/supersession of elected bodies, the Courts have always insisted that the conditions laid down for the exercise of that power must be strictly adhered to and should be shown to exist. It needs no gainsaying that the opinion which the Federal Government has to form under section 10 of the Ordinance should not be subjective but must be objective and should be based upon material on the record and should duly be supported by reasons. If any authority needed, reference may be made to Khawaja Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 18 others (PLD 1988 Lahore 725), Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166) and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473).
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Secretary falls short of requirements of section 10 of the Ordinance is well-founded. Although there is a bad assertion in para. 11 of the impugned order that in the opinion of the Federal Government the affairs of Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce are not being properly managed and that the responsibility for such state of affairs rests upon each member of the Executive Committee, but there is nothing to show as to what were the reasons which impelled the Secretary to come to such a conclusion.
Similarly, the material on the basis of which such an opinion could be formed honestly, fairly and justly is not forthcoming on the record. The Secretary had himself in the earlier part of his order had noted that various complaints have been received against the management with regard to irregularities committed in the elections held in March, 1992 and other malpractices in the affairs of Chamber but no definite finding as to which of these allegations were correct has been recorded nor any reason for coming to such a conclusion is decipherable from the impugned, order. It needs to be emphasized that the order had the effect of superseding an elected body and as such, it was all the more essential for the Secretary to have decided the matter after due application of mind.
7. Before parting with the case, notice may also be taken of the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for newly-added respondents that in the event of acceptance of this petition, the petitioners may postpone the elections so as to perpetuate their tenure of office. This apprehension of the learned counsel does not appear to be well founded as it has been categorically stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the elections shall be held before 31st March, 1994 positively. In order to ensure that these elections are held in orderly, peaceful and lawful manner, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, President, High Court Bar Association, is appointed Commissioner to supervise the elections. The petitioners shall notify him the date of elections. He shall be paid Rs.
22,000 as his fee which shall be borne by the petitioners and the newly --added respondents in equal share.
8. Learned counsel for the newly-added respondents has voiced another grievance that the Executive Committee in defiance of the rules on the subject, has already enrolled certain ineligible persons as voters with a view to prejudice the results of the elections. If that be so, it is open to the respondents to raise these objections by filing a representation before the Executive Committee.
Such representation, if filed, shall be decided positively 15 days before the elections when a final list of voters shall be duly exhibited/notified. At the request of the learned counsel for the newly-added respondents, it is also directed that on an application being made by a member of the Chamber, he shall be allowed to inspect the record relating to enrolment of voters.
As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed subject to the observations/directions and the impugned order is declared to be of no legal effect. It shall, however, be open to the Secretary to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if he is so minded.
No order as to casts.