Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. K‑112 of 1981, decided on 9th January, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind, dated 22‑3‑1983 in Constitution Petition No. D‑1595 of 1980) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Co‑operative Societies Rules 1927, r. 45‑A‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine plea raised on behalf of appellant that finding of High Court that no opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence in defence was granted to respondents was factually incorrect‑ Respondent called upon .by a notice to show cause why he should not be expelled out of membership of Society for taking undue advantage of his, position as President of Society.

--‑R, 45‑A‑‑Respondent making a reply to show‑cause notice but failing to appear at hearing of inquiry in spite of two notices issued to him to appear alongwith relevant papers and documents‑‑Impunged order passed by Deputy Registrar Co‑operative Societies also showing that respondent was profiled an opportunity of personal hearing but he deliberately avoided to avail the same‑‑Order of Provincial Secretary, Labour and Co‑operative Department, dismissing revision of respondent supporting assertion that a detailed inquiry on merits of case was made and respondents granted a further opportunity to defend himself‑‑Neither in revision application to Provincial Secretary nor in memorandum of Constitution, Petition any complaint of violation of principles of natural justice made by respondent‑‑Order of High Court that no opportunity of hearing afforded to respondent, held, erroneous and thus set aside.

S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Abrar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th January, 1983.

This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment of sind High Court, dated 22nd March, 1982 by which order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Karachi, dated 27th June, 1979 removing Haider Ali Rashid Mulji, respondent‑1 herein, from membership of the appellant‑Society was quashed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence in defence was granted to respondent‑1 and thus the order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice was void in law. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine the plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the High Court that no opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence in defence was granted to the respondent is factually incorrect.

The facts briefly stated are that the respondent was called upon by a notice, dated 7th December, 1978 to show cause why he should "not be expelled out of the membership of the Society in accordance with the provisions of rule 45‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Rules 1927 for "taking undue advantage of his position as the President of the Society" in that having "manoeuvred to secure allotments of large number of plots in the Society in the name of his daughters and close relations." As many as 17 plots allotted to 7 persons, his daughters, brother, sister, and close relatives, were specifically mentioned in that notice. The respondent made a reply to the notice but failed to appear at hearing of the inquiry in spite of two notices issued to him fort hearing fixed on 24th May, 1979 and 28th May, 1979 specifically calling upon him to appear alongwith the relevant papers and documents, and he was warned that "in case you failed to appear, the matter will be disposed of in your absence." In the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, dated 27th June, 1979, it is also specifically mentioned as follows:‑‑

"Besides he was also provided an opportunity of personal hearing but he deliberately avoided to avail of and caused to send a notice, dated 20‑12‑1978 through his advocate in utter disregard of the decorum to be maintained. He was also given a photostat copy of the complaint, dated 2‑11‑1978. It was believed that after receipt if the required copy he will mend his attitude and furnish proper replies to the charges but contrary to the expectations he addressed a letter, dated 10‑1‑1979 bringing baseless allegations against the Department and agitating irrelevant matters to side‑track the charges. He was given another chance to explain his conduct for which 24‑5‑1979 was fixed for hearing but he remained absent. However, final date for hearing was fixed on 23rd June, 1979 on which date the complainant Mr. Alley Ahmed was present in person while Mr. Muljee was represented by his counsel Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan who refuting the charges demanded vide his application dated 23rd instant that the Society be asked to investigate and offer comments. This application is made to cause further delay in the proceedings and hence unwarranted as the fact of multiple allotments were already verified by two Assistant Registrars Cooperative Societies, Karachi from the records of the Society. There is no doubt in it that Mr. Haider Ali Rashid Muljee, taking undue advantage of his position as President of the Society had manoeuvred to secure allotments of a large number of plots in the names of a few persons, his close relations and friends so much so that even eight in numbers plots were caused to be allotted by him in the name of his one daughter alone obviously for the wrongful gain causing many a member to be deprived of their rights to hold plots in the Society. Mr. Haider Ali Rashid Muljee has failed to submit satisfactory explanation to the charges. He has failed to explain the circumstances under which he caused to issue multiple allotments in the manner.

After giving careful considerations to the replies I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Haider Ali Muljee has committed the act prejudicial to the interest of the Jaffar‑e‑Tayyar Co‑operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi."

Learned counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the High Court has obviously erred in holding that no opportunity to appear in the case or to produce evidence in defence was granted to the respondent. Learned counsel also referred to the order of the Provincial Secretary in the Labour and Cooperation Department, dated 5th October, 1980 dismissing the Revision Application filed by the respondent. This order also supports the assertion that a detailed enquiry on merits of the case was made and the respondent was also granted a further opportunity to defend himself.

Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that neither in the Revision Application to the Provincial Secretary nor in the Memorandum of the Constitution Petition, any complaint regarding violation of the principles of natural justice was made by the respondent. It is thus amply clear that the High Court fell in error in reaching the finding stated above and this appeal must be allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs.

M.Y.H. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.