P L D 1973 Lahore 421 (PLP)

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and

5. M. B. Zaman, A: G. assisted by Kh. Muhammad Tufail for the State. Date of hearing : 27th November 197

2. This writ petition calls for the interpretation of clause (5) of Article 5 of the Co‑operative Societies (Reforms) Order, promul gated by the President as Order No. ‑9 of 1972 (hereinafter mentioned as Order).

2. The petitioners are seven in number and were elected as Members of the Managing Committee of Lyallpur Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Lyallpur. The normal term of an elected member is three years. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, namely, Mian Muhammad Saeed and Ch. Abdul Aziz, have yet to complete about two years of their tenure while the other petitioners have one year's tenure left still to them. The Order was published in the Gazette Extraordinary on the 15th of March 1972, and came into force at once. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 5 of the Order contemplate the automatic removal of members who have had enjoyed a consecutive tenure for six years. They can, however, contest the election to the Managing Committee after the expiration of a period of twelve months following the two consecutive terms. Clause (4) of Article 5 lays down that if the number of vacancies caused in consequence of the opera tion of clause (2) is not more than one‑third, the vacancies so caused shall be filled up in accordance with the bye‑laws, but clause (5) further says that if the number of such vacancies exceeds one‑third, the whole committee shall stand superseded and the affairs of the society shall be managed by an Administrator appointed by the Registrar until "the persons elected as members of the Committee at the election held in pursuance of clause (6) have assumed office". Clause (6) reads as under :‑ "Where the committee of a society stands superseded in pursuance of clause (5), the vacancies in the committee shall be filled by election in a general meeting of the society to be called by the Registrar on a date between the first day of August 1972, and the thirty‑first day of October 1972." Later on by an amendment in law by Ordinance XX of 1972 promulgated by the Governor, the date of election was fixed between 1st of December 1972 and 28th of February 1973. Since the number of the members of the respondent‑Bank exceeded one‑third which was hit by the disqualification mentioned in clause (2), the entire committee was superseded in view of the provisions of clause (5) and an Administrator was appointed vide notification dated 21st of March 1972.

3. The Bank had decided that the entire elected membership of the committee shall consist of fifteen members, including the Vice‑President. It was also decided vide annexure `A' that nomination papers shall be filed by the candidates on 13th of October 1972. The petitioners state that they met the Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Lyallpur (East) (respondent No. 2) and told him that by this decision they will lose the remainder of their terms but he told them to re‑contest the election.

4. I called for parawise comments in this case and the position of the department appears to be that the petitioners have ceased to continue as members of the Managing Committee and shall have to contest the election. The sole question that arises in this case is whether on account of operation of clauses (2) and (5) of Article 5, the petitioners have also lost their seats as members of the Managing Committee along with those who are his by the disqualification mentioned in clauses (1) and (2).

5. It was argued by Mr. Saeedur Rehman Farrukh that the intention of Article 5 clearly was to get rid of members who had been serving on the Managing Committees successively for six years or more so that the Management is revitalized. It is his contention that the supersession of the Managing Committee of the Bank ordered by the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, on 21st of March 1972, could not have legally terminated the tenure of the petitioners. The learned counsel also referred to clauses (g) and (g‑a) of section 71 of Co‑operative Societies Act of 1925 and has argued that supersession actually means suspension of the committee for a temporary period with a view to elect new members in place of those hit by the provisions of the Order. He also referred to rule 48 of the Co‑operative Societies Rules wherein it is said that a committee can be superseded for a specific period and replaced by an Administrator. He has also stressed the language of clause (6) which says that "the vacancies in the committee" shall be filled by election. He argues that if the intention was to deprive the petitioners of their franchise, it should have been specifically stated in the Order and it should have been said in clause (6) of Article 5 that the whole committee shall be re‑elected barring, of course, the official members as contemplated by clause (7) of Article 5.

6. It is a salutary rule of interpretation of statutes that Courts will not easily infer the impairment or forfeiture of valuable rights of citizens unless the words clearly indicate towards that end. It is another rule of construction that if the words are capable of two interpretations, the interpretation favouring the rights of citizen shall be accepted by the Courts. The construction must not be strained to include cases which do not plainly and unmistakably fall within the ambit of the law. Every statute is to be construed according to its manifest intention. It is clear that there is no specific exclusion of the right of the petitioners to serve as members of the Managing Committee. The object of the law clearly appears to be to reconstitute the Managing Committee, so as to get rid of members who have dominated the affairs of the committee for six years or more. There is no mention of the members who have served for a lesser period and reading Article 5 as a whole, one cannot but concede that the petitioners' claim to the continuance of their franchise as members of the Managing Committee has the backing of legal principles.

7. According to Black's Legal Dictionary (Fourth Edition), 1958, the word "supersede" among other things means "annul, replace, to render inefficacious, to set aside, suspend or stay". This word, therefore, means complete replacement as well as suspension which means temporary inaction. Rule 48 of Co operative Societies Rules, 1927 contemplates the super session of a committee for a particular period which implies that the committee can be reconstituted after the expiry of that period. The phraseology of this rule can be pressed into service to find out the real meanings of the word "supersession" as the Order and the Co‑operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, are pari materla I may with greater advantage refer to rule 6 of the Punjab Co‑operative Banks (Committees) Election Rules of 1972, which have been framed under Article 13 of the Order. The rule reads as under :‑ Rule

6. Nomination Papers.‑(1) Nomination papers in the forms to be specified by the election sub‑committee shall be supplied to all m.‑tuber societies by registered post at least 15 days before date of election. (2) The number of vacancies to be filled shall also he intimated to the member societies at least 15 days before the election:'.

8. The learned Advocate‑General has very fairly conceded that what the learned counsel for the petitioners urges is the correct interpretation of law. He in this connection referred to subsection (3) of section 112 of the Municipal Ordinance which says that on the expiry of the period of suspension the committee shall be reconstituted. The learned Advocate‑General said that if the intention was to reconstitute the whole committee under clause (6) of Article 5 of the Order a similar provision should nave been introduced therein. The learned counsel for the bank, however, opposed this writ petition on the ground that the order was aimed at reforming of the Co-operative Societies and the intention was to bring in all fresh members on committees, We have to study the object of the law and then to interpret the various clauses in the light of that object. The Courts In the process of construction shall always refrain from straining the language of a statute in a manner so as to bring those cases within its mischief about which the Legislature has made no Indication.

9. It is not contended that the petitioners were not duly elected to the Managing Committee. They have still some) tenure left. Clauses (5) and (6) refer to the "vacancies caused" by operation of clauses (1) and (2) only. It is not intended by Article 5 of the Order that the petitioners should be deprived of their rightful franchise. I, therefore. allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioners shall continue to enjoy their tenure as members of the Managing Committee after its reconstitution till this tenure comes to an end in accordance with law. S. A. H. Petition allowed.