The Urban Rehabilitation Department, Government of the Punjab, has in the city of Faisalabad, earmarked land measuring 85 acres in Peoples Colony, Extension No. 1 for District Gurdaspur Muhajreen Co-operative House-Building Society, Faisalabad registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Society has framed its Bye-Laws and functions under these Bye Laws and the Act. Out of the area reserved the Society proposes allotments of the building sites or residential plots to its members. These proposals are sent to the local Building Department, Government of the Punjab, for handing over the possession of the site to the proposed allottee. The allotment proposed by the Society is subject to confirmation by the District Housing Committee of the Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab. However, if the proposal made by the Society is not objected to by the said Committee the same is deemed to have been approved on the expiry of a period of ninety days. The allottee makes payment of the sale price to the Government which, after receiving full payment, executes the sale-deed in his favour. Notwithstanding the reservation of the area for allotments to the members of the Society, the same is and has always been in the possession and control of the Provincial Government. On the finalization of the allotment of a particular site or a plot to any member, possession is delivered to the allottee by some representative of the Government. I have ascertained these facts from the learned counsel for the parties, the affidavit of the Administrator of the Society and the letters on the subject issued by the Provincial Urban Rehabilitation Department--pointed reference can be made to Memorandum No. 2405-AURD-62/8090 dated 17th November, 1962 from the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Satellite Towns, West Pakistan Urban Rehabilitation Department, to the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur.
2. Petitioner's case is that he is one of the founder members of the Society since 1958. Plot No. 406 was allotted to him. Possession of this plot could not be delivered to him till 1963. Petitioner's allotment of this plot was cancelled on the allegations that he had not been able to raise construction within the stipulated period. The petitioner represented against this action to the President of the Society. On his assurance that a fresh allotment would be made to the petitioner as soon as any plot became available, the petitioner, it appears, did not pursue the matter any further.
3. Petitioner, in the year 1964, purchased debris available on plot No. 213-A (the disputed plot) from one Ibrahim who was in unauthorised possession of the same. This was with the hope that the Society would make allotment of this plot in favour of the petitioner. The Society however, did not oblige the petitioner and instead allotment of the plot in dispute was made in favour of respondent No. 5.
4. The petitioner becoming aware of it submitted an application to the Assistant Registrar, Lahore.
East praying for the allotment of the disputed plot to him. It was stated that though the petitioner was a founder member of the Society, he was ignored and the plot allotted to respondent No. 5 who was not even a member. The petitioner, in any case, claimed preference to the allotment of the disputed plot over respondent No. 5. It may be noticed that no attempt was made in this application to raise a dispute as contemplated in section 54 of the Act and to refer the same to the Registrar for decision or his nominee.
Before any decision could be taken on this application, the petitioner filed a revision application under section 64-A of the Act before the Registrar Co-operative Societies praying that the record of the proceedings regarding allotment of the disputed plot and the record of the proceedings pending before the Assistant Registrar be called for and examined. It was further prayed that necessary order for the cancellation of illegal allotment in favour of respondent No. 5, be passed and the plot be allotted to him. Even in this revision no attempt was made to indicate any dispute and to refer the same to a nominee of the Registrar or to Arbitration. This revision application was disposed of by the Registrar by his order dated 13-10-1969. He found that the procedure in making allotment of the disputed plot to respondent No. 5 by the Society, does not suffer from any illegality and simply because the petitioner bad purchased debris from its unauthorised occupant, does not confer any right on him for the allotment of the same. The revision petition was thus rejected. The Registrar, however, directed the Society to consider the petitioner's case for the allotment of some other available plot on petitioner's request. Aggrieved of the order of the Registrar dated 13-10-1969 petitioner filed a further revision before Government of West Pakistan, reiterating the grounds for claiming preference to the allotment of the disputed plot. For the first time, in this revision, petitioner raised a ground that it was a case of dispute between two members and the Registrar was obliged to refer the same to Arbitration as envisaged under section 54 of the Act. This revision petition was also rejected by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department by his order dated 6-8-1975. Order of the Registrar dated 13-10-1969 and that of the respondent Government dated 6-8-1975 have been called in question.
5. The facts stated are not generally disputed by the respondents except that history of the plot has been further high lighted. It has been explained that the plot was originally allotted to a lady member Mst. Khurshid Begum and its possession was, also, delivered to her on 28-2-1964. The allotment was cancelled from her name on account of violation of certain terms and conditions of the allotment. She raised the dispute and the matter was referred to Registrar's nominee who gave award on 27-4-1969. She filed an appeal against the award but during the pendency of the appeal she expressed her disinterest in the plot and the matter was not pursued by her any further.
Notwithstanding this, she tried to make whatever benefit she could make out of the situation. She sold the plot to one Ibrahim unauthorisedly. Even said Ibrahim was not a member of the Society.
The petitioner allegedly purchased debris from Ibrahim. It has been vehemently disputed that he got the debris and the possession in the year 1968 as the proceedings before the nominee on a dispute raised by Mst. Khurshid Begum remained in progress till July, 1969. The standpoint of the petitioner is also refuted that he had ever made an application for its allotment.
6. The petitioner in support of this petition has raised two main contentions :-----
(i) Application dated 16-8-1969 before the Assistant Registrar did disclose a dispute and he was therefore, obliged to refer the same to his own nominee or to Arbitration as envisaged under section 54 of the Act ;
(ii) Allotment to respondent No. 5 was made by the President of the Society who had no authority, under the Bye-Laws, to make such allotment. The allotment to respondent No. 5 was therefore, ab inttio void. He, in particular, referred to Bye-Laws 13, 22 and 27(9).
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, argued that the orders impugned do not suffer from any unlawful exercise of power. Petitioner had, at no point of time, attempted to raise a dispute and asked for its reference to Arbitration under section 54 of the Act.
Even if it be assumed that the dispute could be spelt out from the application submitted to the Assistant Registrar or petition to the Registrar, the Registrar was not obliged to refer every such dispute to his nominee or to Arbitration. He could himself take a decision. With regard to the second contention, learned counsel has not disputed the fact that the allotment to respondent No. 5 in the case was made by the President. He however, submitted that this power was enjoyed by the Managing Committee which, in terms of Bye-Law 27(11), could delegate its functions to a Sub- Committee. In a meeting of the Managing Committee held on 25-9-1966, these powers were duly delegated to the President to act as single member of the subcommittee. He filed a decision of the Secretary, Co-operative Department 'dated 3-6-1967 to present the Department's interpretation of Bye-Law 27(ii). Reference was made to the following passage in this decision:--- "The Major contention of the petitioner is that the President of the Society could not be authorised by the Managing Committee and be delegated with powers of the Managing Committee to pass orders of cancellation or allotment. It is admitted that there is a resolution so empowering the President. The petitioner contends that under Bye-Law 27, clause (11), only a sub-committee could be delegated such powers. I am afraid this argument holds no water. A sub-committee can also be a one-person. The Managing Committee could delegate its towers to the President and these were so delegated. Even if for the sake of argument it was to be contended that it could not be done, then the right course for the member was to raise a dispute about this resolution of the Managing Committee at the appropriate time and for an award. As a resolution is there, the dispute about its validity cannot be relevant in matter of arbitration of the nature before me."
8. To fully appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be advantageous to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Bye-laws as defined in section 3(a) means "bye-laws registered under this Act and for the time being in force and includes a registered amendment of such bye- laws.
Committee under section 3(b) means "the Committee of Management or other directing body to whom the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted".
Section 54 of the Act deals with a subject of Arbitration. It provides if any dispute touching the business a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society arises;---
(a) between members (b)----------------- (c)------------------ (d)------------------ .
(e)----------------. 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. The dispute shall include the question whether a person is or was a member of the Society.
Under section 64-A, the Provincial Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it shall appear to the Provincial Government or the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, or annulled or reversed, the Provincial Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as to it or him may seem fit.
10. The position has been admitted by the parties that bye-laws as provided under section 3(a), are duly registered under the Act: Bye-laws therefore, have a statutory recognition. Bye-laws 16 to 21, under the heading "General Meetings" deals with the powers of the General House and the procedure for holding such meetings. Bye-laws 22 to 31 under the heading "Managing Committee" deal with the powers and the procedure to be followed by the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee enjoys all powers of the Society except those reserved for to be dealt with in general meeting. Bye-law 27(9) provides that Managing Committee with the approval of the General House can dispose of immovable property in possession of the society by sate, mortgage or by any other method. Under Bye-Law 27(11) the Managing Committee can nominate from its members or from the members of the society a Sub-Committee and delegate to it some of its functions.
11. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is without any merit. Section 54 visualises that if there is a dispute touching the business of the Society between the members, etc. Then it shall be referred to the Registrar for a decision by himself or his nominee. In the event if either of the parties so desires it can He referred to an Arbitration of three Arbitrators as indicated in the section. It presupposes that a dispute having arisen should be referred to the Registrar. It is not clear either from the section or rules as to by what process the dispute is to be referred to the Registrar. It is however, quite obvious that the Registrar is not obliged to resort to this section in every case where a dispute of any kind comes to his knowledge. The dispute can be referred to the Registrar by the Society or by any of the parties for adjudication by the Registrar under section 54 of the Act. I get some support for the view taken from Haider v. Registrar Co-operative Societies (PLD 1966 Kar. 177).
The perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Registrar and even the revision petition before the Registrar would show that no request was ever made to the Registrar to proceed under section 54 and it is not even alleged that the Society itself has ever referred the dispute to the Registrar for decision. Question of referring the case to Arbitration, in any event, does not arise as such an eventuality will happen only if either of the parties so desires. The argument therefore, that in the circumstances of the case the Registrar was obliged to take resort to the provisions of section 54 is misconceived. In the alternative, even if it be assumed that a dispute having brought to the notice of the Registrar he was obliged to take any of the steps visualized in section 54, he did take decision in the matter. He is not required in every case to appoint a nominee or to ref the dispute to Arbitration. He can even himself take decision. The Registrar therefore, in disposing of the matter himself, did not act in violation of the provisions of section 54 of the Act.
12. The second contention raised is three-fold. Firstly, that powers were never delegated to the President to make allotments of the plots to the members ; secondly that such a power could be delegated under Byelaw 27(11) to a Sub-Committee and not to a single person albeit the President; and thirdly that the allotments made by the Managing Committee or by its delegate Sub- Committee was subject to the approval as required by Byelaw 27(9) by the General House and this was not done in the instant case.
Question if the powers of the Managing Committee to make allotments, were in fact delegated to its President is one of fact. The order of allotment reads :-- "I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me in this behalf by the Managing Committee . , It can therefore, be safely presumed that such a power was, in fact, delegated to the President. In any case respondent No. 5 .Has placed on record proceedings of the Managing Committee dated 25-9-1966 to show that these powers had been duly delegated to the President. This aspect of the case therefore, does not detain me any further.
It is not disputed that the Managing Committee enjoys all the powers of the Society except those reserved to be taken in the 'general meeting'. Perusal of Bye-laws 16 to 21 would show that no such powers is reserved to be taken in meeting of the General House. The Managing Committee is therefore, authorised to make allotments of the plots to the members of the Society. Under Bye-law 27(11) the Managing Committee can delegate some of its powers to a sub-committee constituted out of its members or the members of the Society. Sub-committee has not been defined in the Act or the byelaws. According to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, Committee means a portion selected from a more numerous body (or the whole body) to which some special business is committed : a person to whom something is committed :" It therefore, does not necessarily follow that a Sub-Committee must constitute more than one person. Even one person out of the members of the Managing Committee or members of the Society can constitute a Sub-Committee and functions of the Managing Committee can be delegated to it. This is in line with the departmental interpretation, as is clear from the order of the Secretary dated 3-6-1967.
The argument that the allotment made by the Managing Committee or the President was subject to approval by the General House, is also misconceived. Under Bye-law 27(9) the approval of the General House is required only when the Managing Committee disposes of any property of the Society. As noticed earlier, the possession of the land earmarked for allotment to the members of the Society had never been delivered to the Society and it had never become the property of the Society. The allotment takes effect with the approval of the District Allotment Committee, functioning under the Government of Punjab Physical and Planning Department. The price of the plot is paid to the Government by the allottee and not to the Society. Sale-deed in favour of the allottee is also executed by the Government. Bye-law 27(9) therefore, has no application.
14. For all that has been stated above, this petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
15. Before parting with the case I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has not been fairly dealt with by the Society. He is one of the founder members. The Registrar, in his order, dated 13-10- 1969, had directed the Society to make allotment of some other available plot to the petitioner. The direction is reiterated in the order of the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Co-operative Department, dated 6-8-1975. I am sure that the Society will now look into the matter and make every effort to comply with these directions.