LHC restrains Anti-Corruption Dept from action against cooperative housing society members

LAHORE, Aug 28 (APP): The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday issued an interim stay order against an Anti-Corruption Department inquiry into a private cooperative housing society and restrained the department from taking any punitive action against its members.

Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Sheikh Sadaqat, general secretary of a private cooperative housing society. Advocate Mian Dawood appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while a law officer submitted a written response on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Department.

The law officer contended that under the Cooperative Societies Act, members of cooperative societies fall within the definition of “public servants.”

Mian Dawood, however, referred to an earlier LHC judgment in the Khalid Wasim case, arguing that the court had already interpreted the legal status of cooperative society members. He maintained that following the judgment, society members could no longer be treated as public servants because they did not receive salaries from the public exchequer.

The counsel further argued that, in view of the Khalid Wasim judgment, the Anti-Corruption Department had no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes involving cooperative housing societies.

The court observed that the case involved important questions of law and would require detailed consideration. It fixed September 21 for final arguments.

In the meantime, the court issued an interim stay against the Anti-Corruption Department’s inquiry and restrained it from taking any punitive action against members of the petitioner society. The court also directed that no society member should be harassed in connection with the matter.

In the petition, the petitioner challenged the Anti-Corruption Department’s jurisdiction to conduct inquiries and register cases in disputes involving cooperative housing societies.

The petition stated that Anti-Corruption Lahore had initiated an inquiry against the society on the complaint of a “habitual complainant.” It argued that the department had no authority to interfere in disputes concerning cooperative societies, as the Cooperative Department was the competent forum under the law for resolving such disputes.

The petition described the present inquiry as an example of alleged misuse of powers by the Punjab Anti-Corruption Department and urged the court to declare the ongoing inquiry against the society without lawful jurisdiction and set it aside.