SAYED ZAHID, HUSSAIN, J.--- The petitioner, who claims himself to be a member of the Society (respondent No. 2) had applied for the allotment of a plot in the said Society. It is his case that he .Deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- as an advance for the plot, but no allotment was made, as a result whereof he had to file a petition under Section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which was accepted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lahore on 8.12.1988, who took the view that the petitioner was a member of the Society and was eligible for the allotment of the plot. This order was challenged by the Society (respondent No. 2) by filing an appeal, which was accepted by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Cooperative Department, Lahore on 3.8.1989. A review was filed thereagainst by the petitioner, which was however, declined that the Secretary, Co-operative had no power of review of his order. This is a writ petition against the above order.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was a member of the Society and had applied for the allotment of a plot. A sum of Rs. 5000/- is stated to have been 'deposited by him and was rightly held by the Registrar ,in his order dated 8.12.1988, eligible for the allotment of a plot. It is contended that a well-reasoned .Order passed by the Registrar after taking into consideration, the facts of the case, has been set aside by respondent No. 1 without assigning any cogent reasons, whatsoever. It is contended that respondent No. 1 was obliged under the law to pass a speaking order by attending to the respective contentions of the parties and giving reasons in support of the order which are lacking in the impugned order. He has placed reliance on Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and 2 others (1999 SCM R 2744).
3. The learned counsel for respondent No. '2, however, contends that the petitioner was not in terms of the Bye-Laws of the Society, entitled to a plot as he had failed to make the requisite payment in time. He supports the order of respondent No. 1, and contends that petitioner was not entitled to relief from this Court on account of laches and conduct.
4. The learned Additional Advocate- General, Punjab has also been heard in the matter.
5. Adverting to the question of laches and conduct of the petitioner in the matter, suffice it to observe that after the order dated .8.1989 had been passed by respondent No. 1, a review was filed by the petitioner regarding which an intimation dated 7.1.1991 was sent to the petitioner that the same was not competent. The present petition was filed on 6.10.1991 which cannot be considered suffering from inordinate delay in filing the same. In M.H. Abidi Vs. State. Life Insurance Corporation (1990 M LD , 563 (Karachi)), the learned Division Bench was of the view that laches is not the same thing as limitation, and no period, as may constitute laches, can be quantified. It was Observed that "in the absence of a bar of limitation, the period, within which remedy is to be sought has, however, invariably to be a reasonable one". In the instant case, the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance had filed a petition before the Registrar, which was accepted, but the said order was reversed by respondent No. 1 in appeal, whereagainst he filed a review petition, which was turned down as not competent. Thereafter, he filed the present petition. It cannot be thus successfully canvassed against him that he was indolent or negligent in prosecuting his remedy. The petitioner thus cannot be non-suited for this reason alone.
6.. Perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 would show that although he noted down the respective contentions of the parties in his order, yet without analysing the respective merits of the same he recorded his conclusion as follows:-- "After hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the relevant record, I am inclined to agree with the appellant." and proceeded to set aside the order of the Registrar by accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 2. It is by now a trite law established through precedents of the superior Courts that even quasi- judicial functionaries while adjudicating upon matters concerning the rights of parties are obliged to record reasons and pass speaking orders. In Federation of Pakistan Vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and 2 others (supra), it was observed that even the President of Pakistan if had to set aside the recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, he was obliged to assign valid reasons for doing so.
7. In the present case, respondent No. 1 while setting aside the order of the Registrar has simply jumped to the conclusion that he was inclined to agree with the appellant and did not record reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. It cannot be regarded as a proper and legal disposal of the appeal filed by respondent No..
2. His order cannot be sustained. Since the matter is to be reheard and decided afresh by respondent No. 1, I have refrained from entering into the merits of the respective contentions touching the factual aspects of the case so that the case of either of the parties is not in any way prejudiced and, the appeal is decided by respondent No. 1 with an open mind un-influenced by any observation contained in this order. It would however, be expected of respondent No. 1 to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, of course after hearing the parties concerned. In order to avoid any delay, the parties shall enter appearance before respondent No. 1 on 25.4.2000. Order. Dated 3.8.1989 passed by respondent No. 1 is declared as illegal and without lawful authority. This petition is accepted in the above terms. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.