' KHUDA BAKHSH MARRI, J.-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) essentially relates to interpretation of President's Order No. 9 of 1972 called "Cooperative Societies (Reforms). Order, 1972" dated 15-3-1972, particularly, Article 6, which is as under:- "Every member of a Cooperative Bank shall have one vote irrespective of the number of shares held by him and, subject to the provisions of clauses (1) and (3) of Article 5, all such members shall be equally eligible for being elected as members of the committee of the Bank."
2. The facts are that petitioner Mansoor Ali by virtue of holding one share with respondent No. 4, the Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd., is its member by virtue of bye-laws of the Bank issued in January, 1970, the Bank is registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
3. On 15-3-1972 President's Order 9 of 1972, "Co-operative Societies (Reforms) Order, 1972" was promulgated which amongst others provided that "a member of the committee of a Cooperative Bank shall not hold that office for more than two consecutive terms or part thereof, that all persons who have been members of a committee referred to in Article 5(1) of the Order for six consecutive years immediately preceding the commencement of the said Order for a longer period shall forthwith cease to be member of such Committee, and that if the number of vacancies caused by the members of the committee of a society ceasing to hold office in pursuance of clause (2) is not more than one-third of the total number of members of the committee, the vancancies shall be filled in accordance with the bye-laws of the society and if the number of vacancies caused by the members of the committee of a society ceasing to hold office in pursuance of clause (2) is more than one third of the total number of members of the committee, the committee shall stand superseded and the affairs of the society shall be managed, and all the powers and functions of the committee shall be exercised and performed, by an Administrator to be appointed by the Registrar to hold office until the persons elected as members of the committee at the election held in pursuance of clause (6) have assumed office, and where the committee of a society stands superseded in pursuance of clause (5), the vacancies in the -committee shall be filled by election in a general meeting of the society to be called by the Registrar on a date between the first day of August, 1972 and the thirty-first day of October, 1972".
4. In pursuance of the above President's Order, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire Board of Directors/Committee of the Bank was superseded because they held office for more than 6 consecutive years and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies accordingly appointed respondent No. 3 as Administrator of the Bank and the Registrar called a general meeting of the society on 29-10-1972 which was adjourned to 18-11-1972, thereafter till further orders. One S. M.
Zakaria and another filed Constitutional Petition No. 609 of 1972 against Registrar, Cooperative Societies in this Court, reported in PLD 1973 Kar. 433, challenging the adjournment of the meeting and for asserting, inter alia, the direction to call for a general body meeting for purpose of filling vacancies in the committee, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not made respondent No. 4 'The Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd." of which they were members as a party, therefore, they have no locus standi to contest and assert their rights and secondly if there was any difficulty, Article 14 of the President's Order can be invoked by them through Central Government which have powers in this regard.
5. We have heard Mr. K. A. Ghani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, Assistant Advocate-General for the respondents. The main point urged by counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner being ordinary member bolding one share of Rs. 25 in the Bank and being its member by virtue of Article 6 of President's Order 9, is entitled for election to the committee irrespective of any qualification and condition in the bye-laws which according to him are materially superseded by President's Order No.
9. He, therefore, sought a declaration that directions be given that petitioner may be allowed to contest to be a member of the committee of the Bank. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate-General, however, opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no doubt that President's Order No. 9 was promulgated for purpose of streamlining the cooperative laws in some respects but the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, as amended, has not entirely been replaced or repealed. He, however, did concede that by virtue of Article 6 of the President's Order 9 any ordinary member of a bank has been given the right to participate and vote in the general meeting of the Bank while electing Managing Committee or Board of Directors irrespective of the shares he holds and in this case he pointed out that the petitioner holds one share of Rs. 25 and according to previous bye-laws only a person holding for shares was eligible to vote in election of Managing Committee or Board of Directors and it is only this difficulty which has been removed by Article 6 and not that he is entitled to contest election or cast vote for election of Managing Committee of the Bank for which there is a clear bye-law that only those persons who can be elected who has held share of the value of Rs. 2,500 in the Bank for at least one year and this bye-law 11(1) has not been in any way affected by promulgation in of President's Order No.
9. There appears some force in the arguments o the learned counsel for the respondents President's Order No. 9, is in nature a reformatory Order comprising of 14 Articles and not a comprehensive law by itself on Cooperative Societies, and in fact for many purposes where provision is not provided in this Order the provision of original Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 has been left alive and in operation. This can be seen from Article 2(h) which says "all other words and expressions which have been used but not defined in this Order shall have the same meanings as have respectively been assigned to them in the Act." Not only this, this Order has, in some cases, left bye-laws of Cooperative Societies Act subje to certain limitations intact, this can be seen from Article 4 which I as under :- "If the number of vacancies caused by the members of the committee of a society ceasing to hold office in pursuance of clause (2) is not more than one-third of the total number of members of the Committee, the vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society."
6. As to the interpretation put by learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 6, that every member of a Cooperative Bank shall have one vote irrespective of the number of shares held by him should mean that he is entitled to contest the election of Committee or Board of Directors, appears to us erroneous and misconceived because the same article goes on to state "subject to the provisions of clauses (1) and (3) of Article 5, all such members shall be equally eligible for being elected as members of the Committee of the Bank". Now this is a very strong qualification to first part of Article 6 because Part 1 of Article 5 concerns with the period when a member of the committee is holding office and its eligibility and otherwise thereafter for election. The same situation pertains with regard to clause (3), wherein the mode is provided for election of fresh members of the Committee against those who have held office for six consecutive years or more.
7. Apart from the above, the petitioner is not very clear even in the prayer wherein he seeks that "he is eligible to offer himself as a candidate for election as a member of the respondent No. 4, Bank.
Now this prayer, by itself, is superfluous because the petitioner subscribed and purchased one share of the Bank under the bye-laws, he has become a member of the Bank and his membership has not been contested by the other side. The next prayer is that direction be given to the respondents to accept nomination papers of the petitioner and to allow him to participate and contest the election for being elected as a member of the committee of the respondent No. 4, Bank. Prayer No. 3 is also of the same nature.
8. However, it may be noted that the word 'member' has not been defined in President's Order 9 of 1972 but it has been left by this Order that `B it may be defined as per Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, wherein in section 3, sub-clause (c) the word 'member' is defined as under :- " 'Member' includes a person joining in the application for the registration of a society or a person admitted to membership after registration in accordance with the rules and bye-laws applicable to such Society."
' Therefore, it is abundantly clear that a member does at mean a member of a committee or a member of Managing Board as claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand the word "committee" is also defined in section 3(b) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, as under :- '4 'Committee' means the Committee of Management or other directing body to whom the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted."
' Therefore the petitioner cannot be allowed to confuse the words 'member of the Bank' to that of 'member of the Committee or Board of Directors or Committee of Management'.
8-A. Now according to the bye-law 11(1) of respondent No. 4 "no member shall be qualified to offer himself for election or to act as Director unless he holds shares of the value of Rs. 2,500 of the Bank in his name and has held them at least for one year". Para. No. 10(a) states that "the supreme authority of the Bank shall be vested in the General Body of members who shall exercise their powers only at a General Meeting convened in accordance with the Bye-laws framed in that behalf. No member of the Bank who does not hold a minimum of fdur shares shall be entitled to vote." Para. 11(e) says that "the election of office-bearers and Directors shall be preceded by nomination in writing of candidates therefor duly signed by two members qualified to vote and also containing the assent of the candidates", as per Annex. 'B', p 43 of the file.
9. It is, therefore, clear that first part of Article 6 of President's Order 9, in or opinion, does improve the right of a member of a cooperative society to participate in the General Body Meeting and cast vote irrespective of his shares for electing member of Board of Directors or member of a committee who manages the Bank but it does not entitle him to straightaway claim that he can offer himself for election to the Managing Committee or Board of Directors irrespective of qualification of holding higher shares values in the bye-laws of Cooperative Societies which in this case qualifies a person to such offer who has held shares of worth of Rs. 2,500 while the present petitioner holds only one share of worth of Rs. 25 and as I have noted earlier neither the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 has been replaced nor bye-laws of cooperative societies, of course their provisions are subject to and subordinate to the President's Order No. 9 which ultimately has to prevail where there is a difference in the Cooperative Societies Act or the Bye-laws.
10. The result is, therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner can offer himself as a voter for electing the Managing Committee or Board of Directors of the Bank in spite of the fact that he holds only one share instead of 4 shares as required by bye-laws but not beyond it. Subject to the above, we see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed but we make no order as to costs.
' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J.-I agree.