Registrar’s approval mandatory for prosecution in cooperative society disputes: LHC

LAHORE, Oct 13 (APP): The Lahore High Court on Tuesday ruled that the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) Punjab cannot initiate inquiries or prosecution in disputes involving private cooperative housing societies without following the procedure prescribed by law, observing that the authority to recommend prosecution rests with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

Justice Jawad Zafar heard a petition filed by Sheikh Sadaqat Ali, general secretary of a private cooperative housing society, challenging an inquiry initiated by the ACE Lahore against the society on the complaint of a complainant described by the petitioner as a habitual complainant.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, advocate Mian Dawood argued that the ACE had no jurisdiction to intervene in disputes involving cooperative housing societies, as such matters fell within the domain of the Cooperative Department.

He alleged that over the past three years, the ACE had become a tool for the misuse of authority, with inquiries being initiated on the basis of baseless complaints to harass and blackmail citizens. He described the inquiry against the society as a clear example of the department’s alleged abuse of power.

The counsel submitted that Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act required the Registrar’s approval before prosecution could be initiated. He also referred to the Lahore High Court’s judgment in the Khalid Wasim case, in which society members were held not to fall within the definition of public servants because they did not receive salaries from the public exchequer.

He requested the court to declare the ongoing inquiry against the society unlawful and beyond the ACE’s jurisdiction.

Assistant Advocate General Falak Sher Gill acknowledged before the court that prosecution under Section 63 could only be initiated following approval from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He also conceded that the high court had ruled in the Khalid Wasim case that cooperative society members did not fall within the definition of public servants.

During the hearing, Justice Jawad Zafar questioned ACE Assistant Director Zaigham over the department’s authority to proceed directly against the society.

“The law clearly states that the Anti-Corruption Establishment does not have the authority to initiate a direct inquiry. Why, then, are people being harassed?” the judge observed.

The ACE official argued that Section 65 of the Cooperative Societies Act brought society members within the definition of public servants. However, the court observed that the high court had already interpreted the provision and excluded cooperative society members from that definition, ruling against the ACE’s intervention in such disputes.

“When the Anti-Corruption Establishment’s authority has already been ruled out, why are you harassing the public? Stop harassing people,” the judge remarked, adding that the powers vested in the Registrar of Cooperative Societies could not be exercised by the ACE.

The assistant director subsequently assured the court that the department would not harass the petitioner and that, if an inquiry became necessary, approval would first be obtained from the Registrar.

After hearing detailed arguments, the court reiterated that no prosecution could be initiated under Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act without a recommendation from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

The court disposed of the petition in light of the proceedings and the assurance given by the ACE representative.