1. M. A. RASHID, J.---Petitioners are a society, registered under the Societies Act, 1912, and is known as Quetta Cooperative Store Ltd. Its registration took place in 1959. One Haji Sher Bahadur is its elected President.
2. Respondent No. 3 Qamar Raza Siddiqui was appointed its paid Secretary, by a resolution of the Society, on 1st April, 1959. His monthly salary was fixed at Rs. 200.
3. According Registrar, Cooperative Societies of Quetta Division carried out an inspection of the petitioner-Society on 8th September, 1971 and found certain irregularities and discrepancies. He therefore directed Inspector, Cooperative Societies to bold a detailed inspection. Such inspection of the Inspector, which was held on 29th September, 1971, revealed that an amount of Rs. 86,452.46, was unaccounted for. The Assistant Registrar therefore issued a notice to respondent No. 3, on 16th November, 1971, calling upon him to show cause as to why such amount may not be assessed as damages, caused to the petitioner, by his misapplication, misfeasance and breach of trust, and why he may not be required to contribute to such damages, together with interest. This notice was under section 50-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act) and its copy appears on record as Annexure G, receiving no reply to such notice within the stipulated period of thirty days the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 19th April, 1972, assessed the said amount as compensation due from respondent Qamar Raza, and directed him to credit the said amount in the Bank account of the petitioners by 15th May, 1972. Respondent Qamar Raza filed an appeal against such order before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was dismissed by him on 30th June, 1972. The Registrar held that as the order of Assistant Registrar, impugned before him, was passed in exercise of the power of Registrar conferred upon him, therefore he has no jurisdiction to interfere in such orders. Thereupon respondent No. 3 moved an application on 6th July, 1972, before the Provincial Minister for cooperation and requested for a fresh inquiry. The Minister ordered fresh inquiries and stayed earlier proceedings. Such inquiry was held by the Registrar, on 7th August, 1972 who found that Rs. 94,808.14 were unaccounted for. He, therefore, directed that respondent No. 3 should pay this amount.
4. This finding was not challenged by respondent No. 3, but earlier appeal filed by him before the Minister was referred to Secretary, Cooperation Department of the Government of Baluchistan who while treating it as a revision under section 64-A of the Act heard detailed arguments of both sides and rejected it by his order dated 30th June 1973. The Secretary held that the orders dated 7th August, 1972 are valid and stand in the field.
5. Respondent No. 3 challenged such decision through a civil suit, filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Quetta on 15th February, 1973 but was later withdrawn. A second suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 30th August, 1973. First appeal before District Judge, and second appeal before the High Court met the same fate. Thereafter respondent Qamar Raza moved an insolvency application on 24th September, 1973, in which peti--tioners were shown as one of the creditors. On an application from the respondents in the insolvency proceedings the District Judge ordered the attachment of the property of the petitioner. But before the insolvency proceedings could conclude on merits, the Provincial Minister for Cooperation, who also happened to be the Senior Minister, directed appointment of a fresh Inquiry Officer. Consequently Secretary, Cooperative Department; Government of Baluchistan, passed such orders on 21st August, 1974, whose operative part reads as follows :- "Now that the senior Minister and Minister for Cooperation has been pleased to direct that with a view to ensuring that justice is done Haji Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, retired Sessions Judge, Quetta be appointed Enquiry Officer to hold de novo enquiry in this case, in compliance with his directive, under section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, it is hereby ordered that Haji Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, retired Sessions Judge at Quetta will hold enquiry and submit his report within one month of the receipt of this order."
6. Upon such directions of the Minister respondent No. 3 withdrew the insolvency application filed by him before District Judge, Quetta.
7. It is the order of the Provincial Government dated 21st August, 1974 which is impugned by the petitioners before us as having been passed without lawful authority.
8. The first contention raised is that the orders of Secretary dated 30th June, 1973 passed under section 64-A bad attained finality and therefore the Government did not have any powers to pass the impugned order. According to section 64-A of the Act the Provincial Government as well as the Registrar enjoy revisional powers for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings" before any officer subordinate to them. The orders passed by the Provincial Government in exercise of such power attain finality by virtue of the provisions of section 64-A which reads as under :---- "64-AA. Finality of orders of Provincial Government.---An order passed in appeal under section 64- AA by the Provincial Government shall be final and conclusive and shall not be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue Court."
9. Reference in this section to order passed in appeal is evidently a typographical mistake because the orders, which are given finality by this section are, those under section 64-AA. And that section, provides revisional powers of the Government and the Registrar. In any case this section unambiguously gives finality to the orders passed under section 64-A of the Act. The order impugned before us, therefore, is an order passed beyond jurisdiction. An additional ground taken in this behalf is that the impugned order, in a way, reviews the earlier order of the Government passed by the' Secretary on 30th June, 1973 for which again there is no provision in law.Review is not an inherent right. It can be conferred by statute, but on the contrary section 64-AA has specifically barred such scope of review.
10. As against these an attempt is made to show that the order of the Provincial Secretary, Cooperation, dated 30th June, 1973, was not an order by the Court as Secretary was not the Government. According to the Provincial Rules of Business, framed from time to time under the relevant Constitutional Provisions for the "convenient transaction of the business of the Provincial Government and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business", a Secretary was declared to be head of the concerned department, while a Minister was assigned such department as part of his portfolio. At the relevant time the country was being governed under the Interim Constitution and its Article 106 conferred such powers on the Governor. And Secretary being incharge of the department could exercise powers of the Provincial Government falling under the head cooperation. In the present case however it is contended by the petitioner that the appeal, (later treated as revision) was presented by respondent No. 3 before the Provincial Minister for Cooperation, who made it over for decision to the Secretary. This contention is not controverted. On the contrary it finds support from an application for stay moved by respondent Qamar Raza, before the Provincial Minister for cooperation on 6th July, 1972 which refers to an appeal presented earlier.
11. In such circumstances the Secretary was obviously exercising the powers of the Provincial Government when he heardsuch appeal, and his decision passed on 30th June, 1973, had attained finality by virtue of section 64-AA. Such orders were not open to review.
12. Another ground taken is that the Provincial Government exceeded its powers under the law when they proceeded to nominate a person to hold an inquiry, because such powers vest exclusively in the Registrar. This is by virtue of subsection (l) of section 43 of the Act, which reads as under :---- "43. Inquiry by Registrar.----(i) The Registrar may of his own motion by himself or by a person duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society."
13. These powers are not available to the Government. Nominating a person to hold inquiry and that also on the request of Secretary of the Society is beyond the lawful authority vesting in the Government.
14. Finally it is contended that the impugned orders have been passed without due notice to the petitioner, for this reason as well they suffer from illegality. It is not denied that the impugned orders were passed by the Provincial Government behind the back of the petitioner, and they are adverse to their interest in more than one way. They evidently violate the well---established principle of natural justice that no one can be condemned unheard.