P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.

The twelve petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of the Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society. They have filed this petition to challenge the orders of the respondent 1, who is the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Karachi, dated 9th February 1956 and 24th May 1956. It is necessary to repro duce these orders here. No. RCS-5 (41)/53 OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KARACHI Block No. 53 Pakistan Secretariat Karachi, the 9th February 1956. ORDER.

After full consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the affairs of Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi and the explana tion submitted by the President of the Society, I have come to the conclusion that:- (1) The General Body Meetings have been generally unruly where opportunity has not been given to members to have their say necessitating interference by police. (2) The General Body have passed resolutions which were against the interest of the Society and exceeded its powers. (3) The Managing Committee has been composed of persons many of whom have acted in a way prejudicial to the interest of the Society. The meetings have been boisterous and unruly. There are party factions of an acute type which have rendered the body incapable of doing any good for the Society, (4) The Managing Committee has failed to safeguard the property and funds of the Society and a very large area of Society's land has been encroached upon by unauthorised persons. (5) Roads have not been properly laid and they are in a deplorable condition. The general development of the area is not upto the standard and much work has yet to be done. In exercise of the powers vested in me under rule 48 (1) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Rules as applicable to Karachi Federal Area, I, H. S. K, Lodhi, as Registrar. Co operative Societies, Karachi hereby order, the supersession of Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi and the Managing Committee for one year with immediate effect. I further appoint the following persons to exercise the powers and duties of the Managing Committee and the Society for the aforesaid period. (1) Mr. M. W. Abbasi, C. S. P., Secretary, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, Karachi. (2) Mr. A. H. Qarni, C. S. P., Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance. (3) Mr. S. S. Jafri, C. S. P., Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Interior. (4) Syed Kazim Raza. (5) Mr. Badruddin Ahmad, Director of Administration, Civil Aviation Department. (6) Mr. A. H. Bokhari, Secretary, Food and Agriculture Council. (7) Mr. A. W. Naqvi, District Co-operative Officer. (8) Mr. N. A. Hashmi, Surveyor General, Survey of Pakistan. (9) Mr. Inamur Rahim, C. S. P., P. E. C. H. Society. (Sd.) (H. S. K. LODHI) Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi. Copy forwarded to- Tlie Secretary, Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., Dadabhoy Nowrojee Road, Karachi, for information. Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi. Karachi, the 24th May 1936. No. R.C.S -5 (41)/53.--In exercise of the powers conferred on me by rule 48 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927, I, H. S. K. Lodhi, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karachi, hereby direct that the following amendments shall be made, and shall be deemed always to have been made, in Order No. RCS-5 (41)/53, dated the 9th February 1956, published in Part VI of Gazette of Pakistan, dated 17th February 1956, namely :- In the said order,- (1) in the second paragraph beginning with the words "in exercise of the powers",- (a) after the word "supersession", the words "of the Managing Committee" shall be inserted; and (b) the words "and the Managing Committee" shall be omitted; and (2) in the third paragraph, beginning with the word ' I further appoint'- (a) after the word "appoint", the words, figures and brackets "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of rule 48 of the said Rules" shall be inserted; and (b) for the words "Managing Committee and the Society", the words "Managing Committee of the Society" shall be substituted." The case was opened by Mr. A. S. Faruqui and, after dis cussing various matters with him, as well as with Mr. Raymond who appears for respondent 1, we considered it necessary to frame two preliminary issues in this matter. They are 'as follows :- (1) Whether the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has the power under the Act and Rules to supersede the Society in question ? (2) Whether he has the power to appoint a Committee of nine persons to manage the affairs, of the Society or the Committee. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocates on the two issues. Mr. Raymond has argued that there is a printing mistake id Rule 48 (1) of the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Rule as appearing at present reads as follows :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a society, the Registrar may by order published, with reasons therefore, in the Official Gazette, supersede the Committee or a Society for a period to be specified in such order". The case of Mr. Raymond is that the original words should have been "the committee of a society", and not "the com mittee or a society". He says he has not yet been able to get at the original Rule as it appeared in the Official Gazette, and he wanted to have a little time to do research work in that behalf. He says that the Rules in India also conform to what lie has said. Ordinarily we should have given him time to do this research work, but we think we can dispose of the matter on considerations other than this one and, therefore, we allow Mr. Raymond to do the research work by himself. So far as w e are concerned, we are prepared to accept for the sake of argument that the words in Rule 48 (1) really were "the com mittee of a society", and not "the committee or a society". Mr. Raymond's argument was that this mistake was realised by the Registrar himself on the 24th May 1956 and, therefore, he issued an amendment slip. We do not agree that a notifi cation of this kind can be given retrospective effect in order that it should come into force from 9th February 1956, when the original notification was issued. Such a provision, regard ing retrospective effect, can only be made by a legislative body which (is ?) the sovereign authority. An executive officer can not by an executive order give retrospective effect to his orders h of a previous date. Whatever that may be, even if we take it for granted that this notification was issued on 9th February 1956, it follows that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no power under the Act and the Rules to supersede the society. This, even on the assumption of the position taken by Mr. Raymond to-day, will be a clear answer to the preliminary Issue No.

1. If, how ever, we take the words to be really as "Committee or society" then, there is no provision in the Act itself under B which the Rules can be made to permit the supersession of the Society. On both the arguments, therefore, the reply to the first preliminary issue must be in the negative. Issue No. 2- The Registrar has appointed a Committee of nine people to conduct the affairs of the Committee and the Society, or the Committee of the Society, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 48, which reads as follows :- "All powers and duties of the Committee shall during the period of supersession be exercised and performed by such person or persons not exceeding nine, as the Registrar may from time to time appoint in this behalf." Sub-rule (3) of Rule 48 reproduced above would clearly give the power to the Registrar to appoint the Committee of nine people to conduct the affairs of the Committee. But the fundamental question involved in this case is whether , the Rules conform to the statute under which they are made. It cannot be disputed that the rule-making power is always conferred in order that the purposes of the Act itself should be, carried out, and it also cannot be disputed that .1 the rules framed under the Act cannot in any manner be allowed to contravene any provisions of the Act itself. Now, section 71 (2) (gg) which was introduced into the Act by Act XVI of 1943 reads as follows :- "Such Rules may provide, where all the Members of the Committee have been suspended or removed, for the appoint ment of a person to administer the affairs of the Society and for the powers to be exercised and duties to be performed by such person." Nowhere is there any provision under section 71 or under any other section of the Societies Act permitting the appointment of nine people to carry on the duties of the Committee. Mr. Raymond has drawn our notice to the fact that even in Bombay this sub-rule (3) of Rule 48 exists in the same form. That is only natural, because the old Province of Sind was attached to Bombay and the Act was "The Bombay Co-oper ative Societies Act". This fact, however, would not spread a halo of sanctity round sub-rule (3) of Rule 48 here Sp : when in Bombay section 71 (2) (gg) was not introduced-Act XVI of 1943 was passed by Sind after separation from Bombay. There being no provision in the Act for the appointment of nine people to conduct the affairs of the Society, the answer to preliminary Issue No. 2 must also be clearly in the negative. The effect of the findings on these two preliminary issues makes the disposal of the entire Writ Petition now quite easy. The result of these two findings is that the Society in question cannot be said to have been superseded on any date, whether 9th February 1956, 24th May 1956 or any date previous to that. Therefore the Society itself and the General Body thereof must be considered to be in their offices. The order appointing the nine people to manage the affairs of the Com mittee must also be declared to be without jurisdiction and ultra vires. These gentlemen also go out. What remains is that the Managing Committee of the twelve petitioners stands dissolved with effect from 9th February 1956. But it was the duty of the Registrar of Societies, who was carrying on the purposes of the Societies Act, to immediately appoint an Administrator after he superseded the Managing Committee. Since he has not passed any order to fill in the vacuum, his order superseding the Managing Committee must be considered to be at least inoperative and ineffective. The position created by him gives rise to several complications and anomalies. Whatever action has been taken by the nine gentlemen during the period after 24th May 1956 will also naturally be challenged. We would, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and issue Writ of certiorari quashing the two orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and we further direct that respondent 1 should bear the costs of the petitioners. No order as to costs of respondents 2 to

10. A. H. Writ of certiorari issued.