The Board of Directors of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited, Head Office Lahore by its Resolution No.4 dated 26-4-1997 decided that the general meeting of the Bank would be held on 3- 8-1997 to elect new Board of Directors. By public notice dated 24-6-1997 issued by the Circle Registrar/Convener of Sialkot District, the election of the delegates of the District was scheduled to be held on 10-7-1997 at the Sialkot Branch of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the said meeting was actually held at the stipulated place and time and 22 delegates were elected in accordance with the provisions of the rules and bye-laws.
This was done in absence of the Circle Registrar/Converner by electing Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Dhillon as Chairman to preside over the meeting as provided in Bye-law No.25 of the bye-laws. This factual position is disputed by the respondents. The petitioner No.1 filed his nomination papers as a candidate for the election of Board of Directors of the Bank to be held on 3-8-1997. The nomination papers were not entertained by the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited. The petitioner No. I was informed that meeting of the shareholders of the society was not held on 10-7-1997, therefore, his nomination papers could not be entertained. The respondents have placed on record a copy of order dated 9-7-1997 issued by the Registrar/President of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited, Lahore whereby the election of the delegates in the District meeting of the member Societies the Sialkot District scheduled to be held on 10-7-1997 was postponed till further orders.
Subsequently, a public notice also issued under the signatures of Secretary for Elections Sub- Committee of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Whereby a fresh schedule of election of the district delegates was announced. This public notice was also published in the daily Nawa-i- Waqt, Daily Jang and Pakistan on 17-7-1997. The fresh elections of the district delegates have since been held and 22 delegates of the District Sialkot have been elected in pursuance of the fresh schedule.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that respondent No.2 (Registrar) was not empowered by any law to postpone the election once the same had been announced and to refix the schedule for such election. It is further contended that even otherwise, the ground on which the elections were postponed was not a valid or reasonable ground. It was further submitted that Rule 14 of the Rules for Election of delegates for general meeting by district meeting adopted by the Board of Directors of Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And approved Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society was the only relevant rule. It was further argued that the said rule empowered the President/(Registrar) of the Bank to remove any difficulty faced in the implementation of the said rules for the meeting of the district on the ground of any genuine hardship if being caused to any member. It was stated that rule 14 ibid would cover only the textual omissions/necessary additions for the implementation of the rules but would not authorise the President of the Bank to postpone the election. It was vehemently contended that the difficulty rethreal in nature was not the one contemplated by the rules. It was argued by the learned counsel that the impugned actions on the part of the respondents were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The election of the district delegates held on 10-7-1997 were valid giving rise to legal effects.
4. From the other side learned Advocate-General, Punjab as also Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate for the respondents have st4ted that the election of the district meeting Sialkot had factually and lawfully been postponed by the (Registrar)/President of the Bank on 9-7-1997 on the recommendations of the Circle Registrar/Convener as well as by the District Magistrate, Sialkot. It was further stated that the order of postponement of election had been duly pasted outside the premises of the building of the Bank at Sialkot. All concerned had been duly informed of the postponement of election. They further argued that on account of the postponement of the election the Circle Registrar/Convener did not come to the Branch of the Bank to preside over any so-called meeting on 10-7-1997. They further pointed out that even factually no such meeting was held at the appointed time and place on 10-7-1997. They have placed on record an affidavit dated 18-7-1997 by the District Manager of the Sialkot Branch of the Bank in this behalf. They categorically stated that the election has now been actually held on 24-7-1997 as per revised schedule and the district delegates have since been elected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I find that by order dated 9-7-1997 the Registrar of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd./President directed the postponement of the election of the delegates in the district meeting of the member Societies of District Sialkot. It was for this reason that the convener was not present on 10-7-1997 to preside over a meeting for the said purpose. Even the Circle Registrar/Convener had also reported for the postponement of the election. The District Magistrate/D.C., Sialkot vide his letter dated 9-7-1997 had also informed that acute tension between the parties existed which might lead to potential threat to law and order in the process of the election of the delegates. Rule 14 of the Rules for the election of the district delegates could justifiably be invoked by the President of the Bank in the situation. The said rule is not confined only to a particular difficulty but its scope is quite wide and would cover any difficulty being faced in process of holding of the district meeting for any reason. The word 'any' appearing twice in the said rule is of wide import and excludes any qualifications or limitations. See the case of Ch. Zahoor Elahi v. The State (PLD 1977 SC 273). Even otherwise, section 13 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 also lays down that where a power is conferred by or under any law that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion required. Therefore, the power of announcing the schedule of election includes the power to reschedule the same. This does not appear to be intention of law that once an election is announced the authorities are denuded of their power to change the schedule. No such prohibition is spelt out from the rules or the bye laws.
Even under section 20 of, the General Clauses Act it has been clearly provided that the power to issue an order includes a power exercisable in the like manner to add, to amend, vary or rescind the same. Reliance can be placed on the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ch. Sher A.I v. Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and 2 others (PLD 1985 Lahore 280).
In the precedent case a meeting scheduled for the vote of no confidence against the Chairman of the Local Council was postponed by the Divisional Commissioner without there being any provision in the rules. It was held that notwithstanding the absence of any provision the postponement of the meeting by the authorities concerned was valid where it was not possible or extremely inconvenient to hold such a meeting for any unavoidable circumstances. It was further held that it was for the Commissioner to judge for himself whether the circumstances existed to justify such extraordinary step for postponing the meeting. Even on the factual plane the order dated 9-7-1997 passed by the Registrar/President of the Bank had not been called in question by the petitioners.
The presumption of regularity and correctness is attached to such orders passed by the functionaries. See the cases of Federation of Pakistan v. Aftab Ahmad Sherpao (PLD 1992 SC 723), Saeed Ahmad Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 151), Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1991 Lahore 78, Government .Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. Khalil Ahmad and others (1994 SCMR 782), The Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1971 SC 911) and The Chairman, East Pakistan Railway Board, Chittagong and another v. Abdul Majid Sardar, Ticket Collector (PLD 1966 SC 725). Similar view was taken in R. K. Jain v. Bar Council (AIR 1974 Allahabad 211) on the question of power to revise schedule of election.
6. The affidavit of the District Manager of the Bank, Sialkot that no such meeting as alleged by the petitioners was factually held on 10-7-1997 has also not been contradicted by the respondents.
7. From the above discussion, I hold that neither meeting dated 10-7-1997 was actually held at the appointed time and place nor the same could be validly held in the presence of the order dated 9- 7-1997 of the postponement of the election. The authorities were, therefore, well within their right to refuse to entertain the nomination papers of the petitioner No. l for the election to the Board of Directors.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.