1992 PLP 1644 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925), Ss.54 & 55‑‑‑Statutory functionary bound to perform duty cast upon him by law‑‑‑Petitioners having deposited specified amount with respondent‑Corporation, its refusal to pay back same culminated into award given by respondent Authority directing respondent‑Corporation to make payment of specified amount to petitioners‑‑ Petitioners' application for execution was however, refused on basis of policy of Government‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Respondent Authority had stated that he was verbally instructed by functionary of Government not to proceed With execution of award‑‑‑Such verbal instructions, however, which had no backing of law could hardly furnish justification for refusing to perform duty cast by law on statutory functionaries‑‑‑Respondent Authority was directed to proceed with execution of award strictly in accordance with law. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973, has been filed by Bashir Ahmad and 7 others against the Industrial Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, and National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation, Lahore, with the grievance that an award made by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners is not being executed.

2. The facts necessary are that the petitioners had deposited certain amounts of money with respondent No.2. However, as the said amount was not being paid by respondent No.2, the petitioners made an application under sections 54 and 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, on 6th of October. 1991, to respondent No.1. On 11th of November, 1991, respondent No.1 gave an award, directing respondent No.2 to make payment of Rs.57,94,900 to the petitioners. Subsequently, on 20th of November, 1991, an application for execution of the award was filed but, however, respondent No.1 had refused to proceed with execution vide his order Annexure 'F, which reads as under:‑ "Since the Government policy is not clear on the matter therefore, execution proceedings cannot be initiated."

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award made by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners had attained finality and respondent No.1 is under legal obligation to execute the same under section 59 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which requires the award to be executed by the respondent as a decree of the Civil Court.

4. Rana Muhammad Arshad, the learned Additional Advocate‑General as also respondent No.1 have not denied the correctness of the facts narrated in this petition. The learned Additional Advocate‑General is not in a position to deny that under the law respondent No.1 could not refuse to execute the award on the basis of a policy of the Government. Respondent No.1 states that he was verbally instructed by the Secretary, Cooperatives. Government of the: Punjab, Lahore, not to proceed with the execution of the award. To say the least, such verbal instruction which have no backing of law can hardly furnish a justification for refusing to perform the duty cast by law on a statutory functionary. It may be noted that no rule or authority has been cited on the basis of which the Secretary, Cooperatives could have issued verbal instructions to respondent No.1 not to execute the award. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and IA respondent No.1 is directed to proceed with the execution of the award strictly) in accordance with law. No order as to costs A.A./B‑15/L Petition accepted