P L D 1990 Karachi 335 (PLP)

HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.‑‑‑By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, M/s. Mumtaz Steel Corporation and other Steel Mills have challenged the elections of Pakistan Steel Rerolling Mills Association, respondent No. 1, held on 28‑11‑1989.

2. Petitioners are members of Respondent No. 1 which is an Organization of Steel Mills owners. By its Circular, elections for 1989‑90 were notified for 28‑11‑1989. It is averred that the Secretary of the Respondent No. 1 had received the proxies at a place other than the appointed place in order to avoid inspection thereof which had resulted into rejection of three proxies, namely, of Itafaq Steel and Rerolling Mills, Pakistan Steel Products and New Sartaj Steel. The situation was manoeuvred by which the voting potential was manipulated to demonstrate a so‑called equality of votes entailing the pre‑arranged exercise of the casting vote by the Vice‑Chairman. In this manner the so‑called electoral victory of petitioners' opponents, namely, respondents No. 3 to 6 was procured. Letters of protests dated 3‑12‑1989 (Annexures E & F) are said to have been sent to respondent No.

1. Similarly, notices dated 3‑12‑1989 (Annexures J & J1) were also served upon the respondent No. 1, to which the respondent No. 1 had sent replies both dated 6‑12‑1989 (Annexures L & M) setting up vague and untenable pleas in rebuttal. It is also averred that the petitioners in vain had also sought the intervention of the respondent No. 2, namely, the Director Trade Organization, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, constituted under the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961.

3. The respondent No. 1 in their counter‑affidavit have vehemently opposed the main petition and have denied the various allegations made therein. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents No. 1 and 2 as to the maintainability of the petition in view of sections 9 and 12 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961. It is contended that free and fair elections took place and the rejection of proxies was unanimously accepted by the House and recorded in the minutes prepared by the Secretary and signed by the Chairman of the respondent No.

1. According to them, in pursuance of the said elections, the Karachi Circle Executive Committee have started functioning in their office and in fact its one meeting has already taken place vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit.

4. Mr. Nasim Farooqi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged before us that the respondent No. 1 could not reject or declare as invalid the said proxies unless show‑cause notices are given by the respondent No. 1 to the persons appointing the proxies. According to him, the provisions as contained in section 161 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, relating to `Proxy' are not applicable to the respondent No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 is "an association not for profit" and do not have any share capital.

5. It is contended by Mr. S.A. Wadood, Deputy Attorney‑General, and Mr. Andleeb Alvi, learned counsel for the respondents that the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, provides complete machinery for dealing with all matters relating to Trade Organizations including the present one in relation to acceptance or rejection of proxies. It is urged that there is nothing to prevent them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Director of Trade Organizations for annulment of elections under section 9(2) (e) of the Ordinance in case there had been such malpractice. Learned counsel then referred to section 12 of the Ordinance under which no suit would lie against a Trade Organization, its executive committee or other body calling in question the validity or propriety of any of its acts or proceedings unless the same has been referred to Arbitration in Tribunal constituted thereunder. In support of their contentions learned counsel have relied upon PLD 1982 Quetta 136; PLD 1982 Kar. 889; PLD 1983 Lah.

1. Finally, it is urged by them that a decision made under section 9 of the Ordinance is appeal able under section 15 thereof which too is open to judicial review under the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reference is made to the case of Mehar AM v. Pakistan and 5 others reported in PLD 1980 Kar. 609.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Nasim Farooqi was unable to satisfy us as to how in the face of sections 9 and 12 of the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, the petitioners at this stage can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly the petitioners had acknowledged the propriety of the Director of Trade Organizations under section 9 of the Ordinance by sending a telegram to him on 19‑12‑1989 for redress of their said grievance but before he could take any action, the petitioners had hastened‑to file this petition the very next day viz. 20‑12‑1989.

7. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961, provides inter alia machinery for resolving the grievances relating to election of the Trade Organization including irregularities connected with proxies. Hence we find no merit in the petition which is A dismissed in limine. However, under the circumstances we direct the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Director, Trade Organizations, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, to dispose of Representation sent to him by the petitioner No. 1 by their telegram within two weeks from the date of this order, as contemplated under section 9(2) (e) of the Ordinance. The operative part of this order was pronounced by us vide short order passed by us on 28‑12‑1989. A.A./M‑1073/K Petition dismissed.