2007 PLP 1542 (CLC)

Feeling aggrieved of order, dated 12-4-2006 passed by the respondent, the petitioner filed an application under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993. This application has been rejected by a learned Cooperative Judge of this Court vide order, dated 22-9-2006 holding the application to be barred by time.

2. Learned counsel contends that after deducting the time for preparation of the copies, the application was within time. He further contends that the period of limitation i.e. 60 days from the date of the order of the Judicial Officer was prescribed vide section 2 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Amendment Ordinance, 1999 (Ordinance No.1III of 1999). This Ordinance was promulgated on 9-10-1999 and was never placed before the Legislature in accordance with the Constitution of the country and lost its efficacy upon expiry of 120 days. The precise contention is that no period of limitation stands prescribed for the said application.

3. We have gone through the copies of the available records. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining copy of order, dated 12-4-2006 on 20-4-2006 when it was prepared and delivered on 24-4-2006. The application before the learned Cooperative Judge was filed on 19-6-2006. We find that even after deducting the said period of time for preparation and delivery of the copies, the application is still barred by time. Learned counsel contends that since his client acquired knowledge on 20-4-2006 the time between 12-4-2006 and 20-4-2006 has to be excluded. This plea is rather baseless. The petitioner, admittedly, acquired knowledge of the order on 20-4-2006 and a copy was delivered to him on 24-4-2006. At this point of time, 51 days were still available for filing the application, however, the petitioner allowed the time to go by. We, therefore, do find that the application was barred by time and no grounds stood made out for condonation of delay. We also agree with the learned Cooperatives Judge that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable.

4. Coming to the said second contention of the learned counsel, the said Ordinance was promulgated on 9-10-1999. After whatever happened on 12-10-1999 proclamation of emergency was issued on 14-10-1999 and the Officer holding the posts of Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff Committee, Chief of Army Staff as also Chief Executive of the country promulgated a Provisional Constitutional Order No.1 of 1999. Article 5-A(1) provides that an Ordinance promulgated by the President or the Governor of a Province shall not be subject to the limitation as to its duration prescribed in the Constitution. Sub-clause (2) of the said Article 5-A makes the provisions of the said clause (1) applicable to an Ordinance issued by the President or by the Governor which was in force immediately before 14-10-1999. Article 270-AA of the Constitution protects the said Provisional Constitution Order and consequently the said Ordinance till such time that it is altered, reviewed or amended by the competent Authority. No such action has been taken till date by the said competent Authority as defined in the said Article 270-AA. The provisions prescribing the limitation having been so validated, the application filed beyond the said period of limitation was correctly dismissed by the leaned Cooperative Judge as being barred by time. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. S.A.K./Z-38-/L Petition dismissed in limine.