MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department and 2 others, petitioners herein, seek leave to appeal against judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-12-1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1994.
2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred as Society) and 11 other Members of the Managing Committee of the Society invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court through the aforementioned writ petition wherein they averred that the election of the Society is held every three years. The last election was held on 6-11-1992 wherein the rival group was defeated The members of that Group felt aggrieved and manipulated to move different applications before Mr. Muhammad Naeem Siddiqi, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society whereupon Mr. Muhammad Naeem Siddiqi, Deputy Registrar, issued a show-cause notice under Rule 48 of Cooperative Societies Rule, 1927. The Society filed application to petitioner No.1 for transfer of various applications pending against the Society before Mr. Muhammad Naeem Siddiqi, Deputy Registrar, to some other authority on the ground that the Deputy Registrar was biased against the office--bearers of the Society. One of the allegations levelled against him is re-produced hereunder:-- "That the respondent contested the election in 1989 on the panel of Mujahid Group commonly known as Bhatti Group and was badly defeated only having 58 votes. This group also contested elections in 1992 and again was defeated. The respondent is now taking revenge of this defeat after appointment as Deputy Registrar Cooperatives, encouraged other defeated candidates to create nuisance in the Society."
The petitioner No.1 passed an order for maintenance of status quo meanwhile. In the report submitted by the Deputy Registrar it was admitted that he had participated in the election of the Society in 1989 on the panel of Rival group as also that the Rival Group was defeated in the election held in November, 1992.
During the pendency of the aforesaid cases Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt, respondent, No.2, in the connected petition, who, at the relevant the, was acting as Secretary of the Society was removed by the Deputy Registrar and Circle Registrar was directed to take over charge of the Society and perform the functions of the Secretary. That order was assailed before the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.12116/1994. The aforementioned cases came up for hearing before petitioner, No.1 on 6-11-1994 and he passed the order to the following effect:- "I have considered the above position of the case. It appears from the orders of the Hon'ble High Court that similar allegations have been levelled against the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, as in the present transfer petitions and the High Court has already proceeded in the matter and has issued notice to respondent No.5 i.e. Mr. Naeem Siddiqi. Therefore, it may not be advisable to proceed further with these petitions. All the 5 petitions are consigned to the record and disposed of accordingly. (underline is mine)."
It appears that Mr. Muhammad Naeem 'Siddiqi immediately on the following day viz. 7-11-1994 took up the case pending before him and passed order superseding the Society as also a decree amounting to Rs.2,49,00,000 was passed.
The High Court siezed of the writ petition and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 13-12-1994, allowed the writ petition and declared the order of petitioner No. l having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with a direction for decision of five transfer applications pending before the petitioner in accordance with law and rules. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the High Court was not legally justified by setting aside the order of the petitioner as petitioner No. l had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the transfer applications moved by the respondents. It was also contended that the respondents, if aggrieved by order dated 7-11-1994, ought to have filed an appeal before petitioner No. l rather than directly approached the High Court in extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners but find no substance in this petition.
Petitioner No. l being Secretary of the Provincial Government and head of the administrative department had inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the application seeking transfer of the cases pending before the Deputy Registrar against whom there were serious allegations, including that of bias against the office-bearer of the Society. Furthermore, the petitioner No. l gave no reason in the order dated 6-11-1994 whereby he consigned the transfer application to the record.
In our view, the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to decide the applications in accordance with law, suffers from no illegality so as to call for interference in the matter. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.