2004 PLP 519 (YLR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY COOPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 519 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY COOPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 519 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 519 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 519 (YLR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD DIN — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY COOPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Saleemi for Petitioner.
- Syed Hashmat Hussain Naqvi on behalf of A.A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 50-A
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition-- Maintainability
Alternate remedy-- Availability
Loss to cooperative society- Recovery of loss
Time-barred appeal-- Non-filing of application for condonation of delay
During audit of the accounts of the Cooperative Society, auditor found the petitioner responsible for the loss and recommendation was made to recover the loss under Ss.22-A & 50-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, from the petitioner-- Appeal against the order was dismissed by Appellate Authority being time-barred-- Plea raised by the petitioner , was that alongwith appeal he had filed application for condonation of delay which was allowed by predecessor-in-office of the Appellate Authority, therefore, successor-in-office could not dismiss the appeal being time barred
Petitioner had neither produced copy of application filed under Limitation Act, 1908, nor any order allegedly passed on said application condoning delay in filing the appeal-- Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, could only be invoked, where the law had not provided any, other adequate and alternate remedy
Remedy of appeal was provided which was not availed by the petitioner within time prescribed by law
By filing a time-barred appeal, the petitioner could not be deemed to have availed such remedy
Order of recovery passed by the Authorities had attained finality and was deemed to have been accepted by the petitioner
Petitioner had lost his locus standi to file Constitutional petition
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was posted as Chak Manager in Cooperative Farming Society in Chak No.390/WB, Tehsil and District Lodhran. During the audit for the period from 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1991, it transpired that he had caused loss to the Society to the tune of Rs.1,03,932 and action was recommended by the Auditor against him under sections 22-A and 50-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to make good the loss sustained by the Society.
2. The case was accordingly sent by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Farming Society, Khanewal to respondent No. 2 Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Multan Division, Multan with powers of Registrar, who vide order dated 1-3-1992, assessed and determined liability of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent and directed him. to make good the said loss sustained by the Society within a period of two months. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed on 17-10-1995 by respondent No.1, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department, Lahore.
3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders of respondents No.1 and No.2 in this Constitutional petition. The petition was opposed by the respondents. Arguments heard. Writ petition and its annexures perused.
4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 on 17-10-1995 shows that vide the same petitioner's appeal was dismissed as being time-barred.
5. It was urged by the petitioner's counsel that on an application in that appeal, delay in filing the appeal had been condoned by the predecessor-in-office of respondent No.1 hence respondent No.1 was bound to decide the appeal on merits and the impugned order passed by him dismissing the appeal as time-barred is therefore, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.
6. In support of the above contention neither copy of the application allegedly filed by the petitioner under the Limitation Act nor any order allegedly passed on said application condoning delay in filing the appeal, was produced. Hence the said contention is repelled. It is not denied that the appeal was barred by time hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be deemed as illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. Constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked only where law does not provide any other adequate and alternate remedy.
8. In this case remedy of appeal was provided which was not availed by the petitioner within the time prescribed by law. By filing a time-barred appeal the petitioner cannot be deemed to have availed that remedy.
9. Impugned order of respondent No.2 dated 1-3-1992, though appealable yet not appealed against had therefore, attained finality and would be deemed to have been accepted by the petitioner on account of which he had lost his locus standi to file writ petition.
10. For the foregoing reasons the Constitutional petition is not competent and maintainable, it is accordingly dismissed. M.H./M-2086/L Petition dismissed.