MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This application under section 11 of-the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 has been moved by Ch. Abdul Majid, who claims to be ex-Chief Executive of National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation, a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which has since been declared as undesirable Society under the aforesaid Act. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order of 17th December, 1996 of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation (hereinafter referred to as the Board.
2. The National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation, hereinafter mentioned as Society, had entered into an agreement to purchase 3000 kanals of land situated in Mohra Noor and Phoolgaran, Tehsil Islamabad with its owners at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per, kanal. The total consideration came to Rs. 13,50,0, 000/- out of which Rs. 1,00,00,000/- were paid on 1-9-1990. The said agreement was subsequently revised on 20-6-1991 and the area agreed to be sold to the Society was reduced from 3,000 kanals to 2374 kanals and 8 marlas of land. It is a common ground between the parties that the balance amount of consideration was received by the vendors who executed sale deeds with respect to part of the area while for the remaining, irrevocable power of attorney was executed.
3. Subsequently on the promulgation of Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution)
Ordinance. 1992, the Society was declared to be undesirable Cooperative Society and as such ceased to function. The Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation, respondent herein was appointed as Liquidator of the Society and all the assets including the properties of the Society came to vest in the Board.
4. It appears that an application was filed by the ex-owners praying that the aforesaid land be returned to them on refund of the sale price paid by the Society to the owners. That application came up for consideration before the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation and was approved on 17-12-1996 by the Board in the following terms:- "The Board decided to retrieve PCBL NICCC unsecured advance fund of Rs. 7,11,00,000/- (Seven Crore and eleven lacs) in cash including the amount of Rs. 38 lacs deposit account of vendors for the purchase of land as per agreement to sell dated 20-7-1991 read with agreement 1- 9-1990. The above revised repayment schedule, approved by the Chairman, PCBL is confirmed for which settlement agreement be made.
((Table))
Revised Schedule dated 10-12-1996.
Cash payment to PCBL NICCC Payment of Schedule Account (of Rupees seven crore and eleven lac)
Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lac) Payment made through cheque in favour of PCBL. #tbs Rs. 38,00,000/- (Thirty eight lac) #the Payment already in account of NIECCC/PCBL (Deposit Account of the vendors with NICCC being part of transaction of land to be purchased for defunct NICCC). #tbs 30-3-1997 #the Rs. 20,000,000/- (Two Crore)
Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (One crore and 30-7-1997 fifty lac)
Rs. 1,73,00,000/- (One Crore and 30-10-1997 seventy three lac)
Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(One Crore)
Total: Rs. 7,11,00,000/- Seven Crore and eleven lac)
5. Through the present petition the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the aforesaid decision and has prayed that it be set aside.
6. Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decision of the Board was not in the interest of Society and is not sustainable inasmuch as a result of the aforesaid order loss running into Crores of rupees has been caused to the society. According to the learned counsel there was no justification to have returned the land to the owners after 5 years of the purchase on the same price which was paid by the society as in the meantime the prices had gone up many fold. It was emphasised by the leamed counsel that in the year 1992 the land was acquired by the Capital Development Authority which had assessed the compensation payable to the owners at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per rate.
7. Mr. Tariq Shamim, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation has supported the petitioner.
8. Raja Muhammad Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the previous owners had defended the order impugned before this Court. He has argued that the decision of the Board was taken in the best interest of Society inasmuch as the land had been acquired by the Capital Development Authority and, therefore, the Board acted wisely in avoiding to of into litigation and to retrieve the money from the previous land owners.
9. Having given my anxious consideration to the various aspects of the case, the inevitable conclusion which follows is that the impugned decision/order of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation dated 17-12-1996 is against the interest of the Society and its members and is not sustainable. The admitted facts are that the land was purchased by the Society in the year 1991 at the rate of Rs. 45.000/- per kanal. The entire consideration was paid by the Society to the owners.
There was as such no occasion for returning the land to the previous owners after 5 years and that too at the same rate which the Society had paid to the landlords viz., Rs. 45,000/- per kanal. It is also interesting to notice that the Board had allowed the owners to pay even that amount in installments spreading over more than a year.
10. Apparently the Board was even oblivious of the fact that the Capital Development Authority had acquitted the land and viz. The Board at the rate of Rs. 70.000/- per kanal. Under no circumstances, could the land be returned at a price for less than the assessed compensation.
11. The only justification put forward by the learned counsel for the previous owners is that the Board by talcing the impugned decision had tried to save the Society from any litigation with the Capital Development Authority. This contention on the face of it is not acceptable, the Capital Development Authority had assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70.000/- per kanal in the year 1992. The question of any litigation did not arise. The effect of the order passed by the Board was to allow the owners to receive compensation from the Capital Development Authority at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per kanal on refunding Rs. 45.000/- per kanal, thus causing a net loss of Rs.
25,000/- per kanal to the Board. It clearly follows from the above discussion that the decision taken by the Board in its meeting dated 17-12-1996 was neither in the interest of the Society nor in consonance of law.
12. Before parting with this case, it may be seated that notice may be taken of this objection raised by the leamed counsel for previous owners. He had argued that the Board at the time when it took the impugned decision on 17-12-1996 was headed by a sitting Judge of this Court and as such this application does net lie. It was emphasised that one Judge of the High Court cannot set aside the decision of another Judge. In support of this, proposition the learned counsel has relied upon Abrar Hussain v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976, SC 315).
13. This contention of the leamed counsel is wholly misconceived; firstly, for the reason that the decision impugned in this petition is that of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation and not of any Judge of this Court. Moreover, the principle on which the learned counsel has relied is applicable to Constitutional petitions in view of Article 199(5) of the Constitution which provides that Supreme Court and High Court are not persons within the meaning of said Article. In the present case, the petitioner had invoked the statutory remedy provided by section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 against the decision of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation.
14. Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate has further contended that the application was barred by time. He was, however, unable to site any provision in law to support this contention. There is no limitation provided by the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 or any other law for filing an application under section 11 of the aforesaid Act. But even if the Limitation Act, 1908 applies, the only Article which can perhaps be applied is Article' 181 which provides a period of three years for filing an application.
15. The locus standi of the petitioner to file this petition was also challenged by Raja Mehmood Akhtar, Advocate who argued that under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 only a person aggrieved of the decision of the Board could file an appeal.
Not much discussion is needed to show that this objection is again without any- foundation.
Admittedly the petitioner was a share-holder of the Society and was also its Chief Executive. Every share-holder of the Society can legitimately take steps for preservation of the assets of the Society arici. To ensure that the same are not frittered away.
In view of above, this application is allowed, the decision of the Punjab Cooperative Board for- Liquidation dated 17-12-1996 is set aside with costs. The amount received by the Board under the impugned order which has since been set aside shall be refunded to respondents No. 2 to 5 forthwith.