1999 PLP 2637 (YLR)

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that dispute could not be referred under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 as the petitioner has not been working as an agent of respondent No. l and had been dealing with the acquisition of land in his independent capacity. His contention is that only that dispute can be referred which arises between the Society and any other person, agent or servant of the Society whether present or past. He argued that as the petitioner has never been an agent of the Society/respondent No. 1, so the dispute could not be referred and adjudicated upon by respondent No.3. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon (1) Government of West Pakistan (2) Faiz Muhammad Awan v. (1) Wali Muhammad Habib (2) The Zamindari Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nawabshah and Zamindari Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nawabshah v. (1) Wali Muhammad Habib, (2) Government of West Pakistan and (3) Faiz Muhammad Awan (PLD 1961 SC 215) and Muhammad Azim v. Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Karachi and 4 others (PLD 1985 Karachi 481). He further contended that provisions contained in sections 54 and 70 are complimentary and section 54 is not intended to cover every dispute created by transactions that a Society has. It is envisaged by section 54 that it will relate to some kind of transaction in which categories of persons mentioned in several clauses of section 54 have interest in that capacity. He contended that in the instant case, the petitioner has never been working as an agent of respondent No.1 and had been dealing with the vendors in his independent capacity for acquiring the land for respondent No.1. He, thus, submits that in no case provisions of section 54 of the said Act could be pressed into service and consequently the orders, dated 21‑4‑1999 and 24‑4‑1999 are illegal and void.

5. Since the matter elates to the interpretation of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, so the same is reproduced for ready reference:‑‑ "Section

54. Arbitration.‑‑‑ If any dispute touching the business of a society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society for its, committee against a paid servant of the society) arises‑‑‑ (a) between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member, or (b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present member of the society, or (d) between the society or its committee, and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or a surety or such officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society, (or) (e) between a financing bank authorised under subsection (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of a society, 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. A dispute shall included the question whether a person is or was a member of a society and also claims by a society for debts or demands due to it from a member, past member, or non‑member or the heirs or assets of a past member or non‑member whether such debts or demands be admitted or not: Provided that if the question at issue between a society and a claimant, or between different claimants, is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society. If no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of this section." It is evident from the perusal of sub‑clause (b) of section 54, (ibid) that any dispute touching the business of a society can be referred for arbitration, if it arises between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the Society. In that eventuality, the matter has to 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 only grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, dispute is not covered under any sub clause of section 54, as such matter could not be referred for arbitration. His contention is that petitioner has not been working as an agent of respondent No. l but in his independent capacity. This assertion is devoid of any force. A perusal of agreement, dated 10‑5‑1987 (Appendix‑C), which was amended on 18‑8‑1987, clearly shows that the petitioner has been working as an agent of respondent for acquiring the land and that is why a huge amount was placed at his disposal for the said purpose. Had he been working as an independent person, there was no need of paying any amount in advance. It is also specifically contained in the agreement, dated 10‑5‑1987 that petitioner shall negotiate on behalf of "MCCHSL" for the purchase of land required for the Society. This provision clearly stipulates that petitioner had been acting as an agent of respondent No. l and was not dealing with the vendors in his independent capacity. This being the factual position, the matter squarely fell within the provisions of section 54 of the said Act and matter has rightly been adjudicated upon by respondent No.3 as a nominee of respondent No. 1.

6. Be that as it may, the impugned orders are appealable under section 64 of the Act (ibid), so the instant writ petition is misconceived.

7. In the wake of the said legal proposition, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Q. M. H. /M. A. K. /M 7/L