2009 PLP 2374 (YLR)
BANTVA MEMON KHIDMAT COMMITTEE-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN AL-HILAL CHS LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2374 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Safdar Ali Bhutto, JJ |
| Parties | BANTVA MEMON KHIDMAT COMMITTEE-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN AL-HILAL CHS LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2374 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2374 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushir Alam and Safdar Ali Bhutto, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2374 (YLR) (BANTVA MEMON KHIDMAT COMMITTEE-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN AL-HILAL CHS LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Razia Danish for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmed for CDGK for Respondent.
- Nadeem Farooqi for Respondent No.5.
- Syed A. Rawoof for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.54-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Cancellation of plot
Petitioner had impugned action of society alleging cancellation of its plot by Chairman of the Society
Petitioner had also impleaded Chief Controller of Buildings and other functionaries for removal of alleged encroachment
Alternate and efficacious remedy under S. 54-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was available to the petitioner
Petitioner had directly approached the Minister Co-operative Department who had rightly referred the controversy to the Registrar Co-operative Society who was already seized of the matter and notice had been issued to the Society and matter was pending consideration
Grievance against the society in circumstances was sub judice before the competent forum under the co-operative societies Act, 1925
Registrar co-operative society was directed to decide the controversy preferably within stipulated period after hearing the petitioner and the Society in accordance with law
Regarding removal of alleged encroachment, since it was a private property and the public functionaries could only come into action, if encroachment was alleged on any public property, which was not so in the case. G. Haider Shaikh for KBCA.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner has impugned action of the respondent No.1 alleging cancellation of the plot by the Chairman Al-Hilal Cooperative Society Limited. Petitioner has also impleaded Chief Controller of Buildings and other formation under the SLGO for removal of the alleged encroachment. When the learned counsel was confronted that alternate and efficacious remedy under section 54-A of the Cooperative Society Act is available to the petitioner she has drawn our attention to Annexures A & A-1 of her comments/ objections in reply to the comments filed by the respondent No.1. It appears that she has directly approached the Minister Cooperative Department Government of Sindh. From the noting on the letter it appears that worthy Minister has rightly referred the controversy to the Registrar Cooperative Society Sindh, who is already seized of the matter and notice appears to have been issued to the respondent No.1 and matter is pending consideration. Under circumstances, as regard grievance against the respondent No.1 is subject before the competent forum under the Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, we would direct the Registrar Cooperative Society to decide the controversy preferably within three months after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in accordance with law. The parties may pursue the remedy provided under the Cooperative Societies Act, if the decision is not acceptable to either of the party. As regard grievance of the petitioner for the encroachment on the subject plot, it is rightly pointed out by the learned A.A-G. and counsel for the CDGK that since it is a private property and the public functionaries may only come into action if encroachment is alleged on any public property, which is not so in the instant case. As regards relief claimed by the petitioner for the removal of encroachment by the official respondent cannot be sustained, petitioner/owner of the property, whosoever may take action against the alleged encroachment in appropriate forums in accordance with law. Petition in above terms stands disposed of. H.B.T./B-23/K Order accordingly.