' Instant writ petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed for declaring the orders, dated 21-4-1999 and 24-4-1999 as illegal, void and of no legal effect.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that an agreement, dated 10-5-1987 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No,4 for the purchase of land measuring 3000-4500 Kanals of land which agreement was later on amended on 18-8-1987 and the area to be purchased was also increased to 6000 Kanals. Later on, the said agreement was further amended and it was agreed between the parties that land will be purchased at flat rate of Rs,40,000 per Kan!. As the petitioner wanted to acquire further land, so a further agreement, dated 1-31993 (Appendix-D) for the purchase of another 5794 Kanals making a total of 7200 Kanals of land was entered into between the petitioner and, respondent No,4. In spite of the unprecedented success of the petitioner, respondent No,4 issued a notice in the year 1994 threatening him to revoke the agreement..
Accordingly, a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief was filed by the petitioner against respondent No,4, in which order of status quo was issued on 1-3-1995 (Appendix-E). An appeal against the said order was filed which was decided on the basis of compromise on 9-5-1995 (Appendix-F). Thereafter, respondent No,4 issued a notice to the petitioner in the year 1996 for the revocation of the said agreement. Accordingly, the petitioner had to file second suit for permanent injunction on 28-2-1996 (Appendix-G) which is still pending. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent No:4 got a reference moved against the petitioner and Mr. Mumtaz Akbar with respondent No,2 through one Haji Taj Muhammad by invoking the provisions of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Another reference (Appendix-I) was also got filed against the petitioner through one Zulfqar Ali. Both the said references are now pending adjudication with respondent No,2. Still another reference has been got filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 from respondent No,4 and respondent No,2 directed respondent No,3 to dispose of the said reference.
Consequent upon two references mentioned above, the petitioner was compelled to file on 9-4- 1997 another third civil suit for permanent injunction (Appendix-P), challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No,2 as to his competency of holding arbitrary proceedings in: the presence of Court compromise, dated 4-5-1995 . (Appendix-F) and continued pending civil suit, dated 28-2-1996 (Appendix-G) and third civil suit, dated 9-4-1997 which is also pending adjudication in the Court of Mr. Shahid Naseer, the learned Civil Judge, First . Class, Rawalpindi. In pursuance of the proceedings referred above, respondent No,1 was approached and was requested to summon ,the proceedings of this case to examine the legality/propriety and regularity of the proceedings under section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, .1925 on 5-3-1999 (Appendix-Q). The said revision was accompanied by an application under Rule 32-A of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 where . "status quo" was also sought to save him from becoming a victim of unfair/illegal proceedings.
Respondent No,1 half-heartedly issued the notice, dated 5-4-1999 for summoning the proceedings of the case. However, without seeking the reply, respondent No,3 disposed of the said reference through the impugned Orders, dated 21-4-1999 (Appendix-At on the basis of said order, dated 21- 4-1999. Another notice, dated 24-4-1999 has been issued by respondent No,1 to the petitioner whereby a ban has been imposed in respect with the sale/transfer in any on the properties mentioned therein.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that dispute could not be referred under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 as the petitioner has not been working as an agent of respondent No,1 and had been dealing with the acquisition of land in his independent capacity. His contention is that only that dispute can be referred which arises between the Society and any other person, agent or servant of the Society whether present or past. He argued that as the petitioner has never been an agent of the Society/respondent No,1, so the dispute could not be referred and adjudicated upon by respondent No,3. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (1) Government of West Pakistan (2) Faiz Muhammad Awan v. (1) Wali Muhammad Habib (2)
The Zamindari Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nawabshah and Zamindari Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Nawabshah v. (1) Wali Muhammad Habib, (2) Government of West Pakistan and (3) Faiz Muhammad Awan .(PLD 1961 SC 215) and Muhammad Azim v. Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Karachi and 4 others (PLD 1985 Karachi 481). He further contended that provisions contained in sections 54 and 70 are complimentary and section 54 is not intended to cover every dispute created by transactions that a Society has. It is envisaged by section 54 that it will relate to some kind of transaction in which categories of persons mentioned in several clauses of section 54 have interest in that capacity. He contended that in the instant case, the petitioner has never been working as an agent of respondent No,1 and had been dealing with the vendors in his independent capacity for acquiring the land for respondent No, thus, submits that in no case provisions of section 54 of the said Act could be pressed into service and consequently the orders, dated 21-4-1999 and 24-4-1999 are illegal and void.
5. Since the matter relates to the interpretation of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, so the same is reproduced for ready reference:-- "Section 54. Arbitration:- If any ,dispute touching the business of a society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society for its committee against a paid servant of the society) arises--- (a)between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member, Or (b)between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present member of the society, or
(d) between the society or its committee, and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or a surety or such officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society, (or)
(e) between a financing bank authorised under subsection (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of a society, it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.
' A dispute shall include the question whether a person is or was a member of a society and also claims by a society for debts or demands due to it from a member, past member, or non-member or the heirs or assets of a past member or non-member whether such debts or demands be admitted or not: ' Provided that if the question at issue between a society and a claimant, or between different claimants, is ,one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society. If no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of this section."
' It is evident from the perusal of sub-clause (b) of section 54, (ibid) that any dispute touching the business of a society can be referred for arbitration, if it arises between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the Society. In that eventuality, the matter has to be' referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or hill nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned. The only grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case. Dispute is not covered under any sub-clause of section 54, as such matter could not be referred for arbitration.
His contention is that petitioner has not been working as an agent of respondent No,1 but in his independent capacity. This assertion is devoid of any force. A perusal of agreement, dated 10-5- 1987 (Appendix-C), which was amended on 18-8-1987, clearly shows that the petitioner has been working as an agent of respondent for acquiring the land and that is why a huge amount was placed at his disposal for the said purpose. Had he been working as an independent person, there was no need of paying any around in advance. It is also specifically contained in the, agreement, dated 10-5-1987 that petitioner shall negotiate on behalf of "MCCHSL" for the purchase of land required for the Society. This provision clearly stipulates that petitioner had been acting as an agent of respondent No,I and was not dealing with the vendors in his independent capacity. This being the factual position, the matter squarely fell within the provisions of section 54 of the said Act and matter has rightly been adjudicated upon by respondent No,3 as a nominee of respondent No,l.
6. Be that as it may, the impugned orders are appealable under section 64 of the Act (ibid), so the instant writ petition is misconceived.
7. In the wake of the said legal proposition, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.