2007 PLP 2856 (YLR)
PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION through Chairman — Petitioner Versus JOINT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others-Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2856 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandia, J |
| Parties | PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION through Chairman — Petitioner Versus JOINT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Undesirable Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2856 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Undesirable Societies (Dissolution) Act (I of 1993) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2856 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandia, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2856 (YLR) (PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION through Chairman — Petitioner Versus JOINT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Hussain Anwari for Petitioner.
- Waqar A. Sheikh with Abdul Majeed, Superintendent Registrar Office for Respondent.
- Safdar Mahmood for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
S.16
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Disso lution of society
Contention of petitioner was that Co-operatives Judge had exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters pertaining to the question of dissolved societies including respondent society, which stood dissolved by operation of law
Petitioner had further submitted that orders passed by authorities at the instance of respondent in the matter pertaining to said respondent over the liability owned to the society, were violative of statutory bar and without jurisdiction
Objection to jurisdiction which went to the root of the matter, could be raised at any stage because it would affect the validity of impugned proceedings rendering same void ab initio
No limitation would run against void order
Question of jurisdiction had not been adverted to in the case by the forums below
Such was a matter that needed to be decided at the outset and was a question that over-reached the law of limitation, because of void, it would infect the impugned proceedings with incompletion and illegality
Impugned order that had foreclosed any challenge by the petitioner on the ground of limitation was declared to be without lawful authority
Authorities, in the first instance would determine the jurisdictional competence of the statutory functionaries under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to deal with any matter pertaining to property matters and claims of defunct societies under the Act. Pak American Fertilizer Limited through Managing Director and another v. Bahadar Khan and 53 others 2004 MLD 1621; Haji Abdul Sattar v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others 1984 SCMR 925; Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff Union . PLD 1971 SC 197 and Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271 rel.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has read from section 16 of the Punjab Un-desirable Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 ("Act") to state that the learned Cooperatives Judge has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters pertaining to the question of dissolved societies including the presently relevant Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. ("Society") which stood dissolved by operation of law. He submits that the orders passed by respondents Nos .1, 2 and 4 at the instance of respondent No. 3 in the matter pertaining to the said respondents over the liability owed to the society are therefore, violative of the aforesaid statutory bar and without jurisdiction. That the petitioner had purported to raise the said objection to jurisdiction before respondent No.4 but the petitioner's effort was thwarted on the ground that its revision petition was time-barred. The objection to jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage because it affects the validity of impugned proceedings rendering the same void ab initio. No limitation runs against void orders. He relies on Pak American Fertilizer Limited' through Managing Director and another v. Bahadar Khan and 53 others (2004 MLD 1621), Haji Abdul Sattar v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others ;(1984 SCMR 925), Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff Union (PLD 1971 SC 197) and Rashid Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 271).
2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the jurisdictional objection under section 16 of the Act does not apply and in any event was never taken before any forum below. Furthermore, he submits that the petitioner has no case on merits because there' is a credit balance due in favour of respondent No.3 against the society; this aspect of the matter,-however, transpires to be disputed.
3. Be that as it may, the objection of jurisdiction has not- been adverted by the forums below. This is a matter that needs to be decided at the outset and is a question that over reaches the law of limitation, because if valid, it would -infect the impugned proceedings with incompetence and illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order by respondent No., 4 that forecloses any challenges by the petitioner on the ground of limitation has committed an error and is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority.
4. The respondent No.4 shall in the first instance determine the jurisdictional competence of the statutory functionaries under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 to deal with any matter pertaining to property matters and claims of defunct societies under the Act, that is, in the case of the petitioner. Petition disposed of. H.B.T./P-17/L Order accordingly.