Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 721
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 1372/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Syed Shah Yousuf Imam and Others (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 721. In this matter between Const. P. 1372/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Syed Shah Yousuf Imam and Others (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1372/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 721 PARTIES: Syed Shah Yousuf Imam and Others (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 01-APR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI _____________________________________________________________________ Date Order with Signature of Judge ____________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J. MR. JUSTICE ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.
Constitutional Petition No. D-6273 of 2019 (Asrar Ahmed Khan & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-4456 of 2021 (Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-4627 of 2021 (Badrunnisa & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-710 of 2023 (Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-6158 of 2023 (Javed Iqbal & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-200 of 2025 (Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited & another versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-1372 of 2025 (Syed Shah Yousuf Imam & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Constitutional Petition No. D-2965 of 2025 (Syed Naseem Ahmed & others versus Province of Sindh & others)
Date of hearing and order:- 01.4.2026
Mr. Abdullah Azaam Naqvi advocate and Mr. Ibrahim Tahir Siddiqui advocate for petitioners in C.P No.D-2965/2025
Mr. Ovais Ali Shah advocate for the petitioners in C.P. No.D - 4456/2021, for respondent No.8 in C.P. No. D -6273/2019, for respondent No.3 in C.P. No. D-4627/2021
Mr. Muhammad Umar Lakhani advocate for the petitioners in C.P. No.D-200/2025, for petitioners in C.P. N o. D -4627/2021, for respondents No.4 to 6 in C.P. No. D-6273/2019
Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman Akhund advocate for petitioners in C.P. Nos.D - 4627/2021, 6158/2023, 710/2023 and 1372/2025, for respondent No.16 in C.P. No. D-200/2025
Mr. Muhammad Vawda advocate for p etitioner in C.P. No. D - 710/2023, for respondents No.5, 6 and 7 in C.P. No. D -2965/2025, for respondent No.7 in C.P. No. D -6273/2019, for respondent No.4 in C.P. No. D -6158/2023, for interveners No.1 to 9 in C.P. No. D - 1372/2025
Mr. Ali Safdar Depar Assistant AG
Mr. Pervez Ahmed advocate for respondent No.6 in C.P. No. D - 200/2025 Ms. Humaira Jatoi advocate for Sindh Master Plan Authority Mr. Raza Mian, DSP (Legal-II) CPO -------------------------
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 2 of 18
O R D E R
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. – By this common order, the Court hereby disposes of the instant petitions along with the listed application, as they involve identical questions of law and fact arising from the same set of circumstances.
2. In Constitutional Petition No. D -6273 of 2019, the Petitioners contend that Respondents No. 4 and 5, along with their officers, representatives, agents, successors -in-interest, assigns, and the members of the erstwhile management of Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No. 6), stand disqualified from membership and, by operation of the Sindh Co -operative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982, are precluded from holding any office or from participating in, influencing, or interfering with the affairs of the said Society. The Petitioners further pray that Respondents No. 3 and 8 be directed to undertake a forensic audit of Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No. 6) in compliance with the express directions issued in Suo Mot u Case No. 06 of 2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is also sought that a writ of mandamus be issued directing Respondents No. 1, 3, and 8 to carry out development works and to conduct elections within the Society strictly after the completi on of a forensic audit and/or inquiry into its affairs, and without any interference from the erstwhile management. Additionally, the Petitioners seek directions for the delivery of vacant and lawful possession of Plots bearing Nos. A -248, A -194, A-165, A- 176, A -39, A -334, B -62, A -49, A -268, 4269, and A -110, situated in Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited, in their favour. In support of their contentions, the Petitioners have placed various documents on record.
3. Upon service of notices, the resp ective Respondents entered appearance and filed their counter -affidavits. Respondent No. 8, in particular, categorically refuted the allegations, terming them false, frivolous, and defamatory, and asserted that no assets or properties of the Society had been misappropriated or unlawfully appropriated. It is further averred on behalf of the Respondents that the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Housing Societies -VI, Karachi, conducted an audit of the Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited and submitted his report dated 17.10.2014 to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Housing Societies, Karachi, wherein certain irregularities
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 3 of 18
and instances of misappropriation of funds by the management of Respondent No. 6 were identified. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have been specifically named in the said audit report as members of the aforesaid management, holding the respective offices of Vice -President and Secretary. Pursuant to the findings of the audit report, Respondent No. 1 issued a notification dated 22.10.2014 appoin ting Respondent No. 7 as the Administrator of the Society. Subsequently, vide notification dated 10.06.2019, Respondent No. 7 was reappointed as Administrator, and in compliance with the Order dated 02.10.2019, a forensic audit of the Society was initiated . It is further stated in the written statement that the record of the Society was incomplete, and that Respondent No. 7, the former Administrator, was not in possession of the complete record. It is also alleged that the previous management failed to main tain a proper and updated register of members.
4. Respondents No. 4 to 6 have filed their respective counter - affidavits, wherein the allegations contained in the petition have been categorically denied. It is asserted that the burden of proof squarely rests upon the Petitioners and that the claims advanced by them are predicated upon forged and fabricated documents. The answering Respondents have specifically denied all material averments set forth in the petition and have reserved all rights and interests of the members of the Society. It is further contended on behalf of the said Respondents that, in October 2014, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies prepared a report and submitted the same to the Deputy Registrar, along with recommendations f or the initiation of adverse action against the Society on account of alleged mismanagement and maladministration. The said report was purportedly prepared under the provisions of the Sindh Co -operative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982, and, in terms of S ection 6 thereof, could only have emanated pursuant to an inquiry conducted by the Government. Reference has also been made to various pending and concluded proceedings, including Suit No. 2548 of 2014 (Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Province of Sindh and others), along with an application for injunction filed in December 2014 against Respondent No. 7. Further, Constitutional Petition No. D-7503 of 2015 (Syed Anwar Hussain Abid v. Province of Sin dh) was instituted and subsequently withdrawn on 12.09.2019. Suit No. 1463 of 2019 (Sultan Muzaffar and others v. Province of Sindh and others) was also filed, wherein the impugned notification was suspended vide
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 4 of 18
Order dated 19.09.2019. Consequent upon the se developments, Respondent No. 7 was removed from the office of Administrator and Respondent No. 8 was appointed in his place.
5. The Respondents have denied, in toto, all allegations levelled against them. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have likewise submitted their comments, wherein they have admitted the factum of supersession and the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer, while specifically denying all other allegations. This Court has, from time to time, passed various interim as well as operative orde rs in the aforementioned matters.
6. In Constitutional Petition No. D -4456 of 2021, the Society along with certain members of Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No.6) have impugned the Show -Cause Notice dated 09.07.2021, purportedly issued by Respondent No.3, and have sought injunctive relief restraining Respondent No.3 from interfering in the lawful administration and affairs of the Society. A para -wise comments/reply on behalf of Respondents No.5 and 6 has been duly filed, wherein i t is, inter alia, stated that certain averments contained in the petition do not relate to the said Respondents. It has further been contended that grounds (i) and (j) raised in the petition are devoid of merit and are misleading in nature. It is also spec ifically asserted that the impugned Show -Cause Notice was not issued by Respondent No.5, namely the Anti -Corruption Establishment, Sindh. Vide Order dated 15.07.2021, this Court was pleased to restrain Respondent No.3 from passing any order in pursuance of the impugned Show -Cause Notice. No objections or comments have been filed by any other Respondent in the matter.
7. In Constitutional Petition No. D -4627 of 2021, the Petitioners, professing themselves to be members and stakeholders of the Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society (ACHS), call into question the legality of the appointment and continued functioning of Respondent No.3 as Administrator of the said Society. It is contended that, since the year 2014, the management and affairs of the Society have b een unlawfully usurped by Government functionaries through notifications lacking lawful authority, issued in violation of mandatory statutory provisions and without adherence to due process of law, including the prescribed requirements for inquiry and oppo rtunity of hearing. The Petitioners further assert that elections of the Society were not conducted within the time stipulated by law. It is additionally averred
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 5 of 18
that, notwithstanding various judicial pronouncements and restoration notifications, the Respo ndents persisted in retaining administrative control in an unlawful manner, thereby occasioning grave mismanagement, including but not limited to illegal sale and allotment of plots, tampering with official records, and fabrication of allotment documents, to the detriment of bona fide members of the Society. Reliance is placed upon a series of litigations, notifications and judicial orders to demonstrate the protracted and contentious dispute concerning the control and governance of the Society. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Administrator is ex facie illegal, having been made without lawful delegation of authority and in excess of jurisdiction, thus being ultra vires the provisions of the Sindh Co -operation Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982, and the Sindh Co -operative Societies Act, 2020. It is further contended that the initial takeover as well as subsequent administrative actions are void ab initio, being devoid of lawful sanction, lacking the requisi te governmental satisfaction, and having been undertaken in breach of mandatory statutory requirements. It is further urged that the continuation of administrative control beyond the permissible statutory period, and in disregard of restoration orders and status quo directives issued by competent courts, is wholly unlawful. The Petitioners allege that serious irregularities have been committed, inter alia, illegal allotments, forgery of documents, and misappropriation of the assets of the Society, and that Respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to discharge their statutory and regulatory obligations. In the premises, the Petitioners seek, inter alia, restoration of the duly elected management of the Society, declarations that the impugned actions are illegal and without lawful authority, and consequential injunctive relief to safeguard their proprietary and legal rights.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petitions, contending that the Petitioners are devoid of locus standi, not being lawful members or duly authorized representatives of the Society, and that their claims are predicated upon forged and fabricated documents. It is further submitted that the petitions are barre d under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in view of the pendency of similar issues in previously instituted proceedings, particularly Suit No. 1646 of 2019, and that the disputed questions of fact involved herein are not amenable to adjudication in the exercise of
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 6 of 18
constitutional jurisdiction. On merits, the Respondents assert that the Society was lawfully taken over due to established instances of mismanagement and corruption on the part of the erstwhile management, as substantiated by audit and inquiry reports; that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was made strictly in accordance with law, pursuant to relevant Government notifications and orders of the competent courts, including directives for the conduct of a forensic audit; and that Re spondent No. 3 has acted bona fide and in compliance with the law to protect and preserve the assets of the Society. The Respondents categorically deny all allegations of illegality, forgery, or mala fides, and contend that the present petitions have been instituted with ulterior motives, aimed at impeding accountability and concealing prior acts of misfeasance.
9. In Constitutional Petition No. D -710 of 2023, the Petitioner, serving as Administrator of M/s. Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited, wa s appointed vide notification dated 10.06.2019, inter alia, with the mandate to assume administrative control of the Society, scrutinize and verify its membership, adjudicate disputes, conduct a forensic audit, and thereafter proceed with the holding of elections. The said appointment was made consequent upon the supersession of the Society on account of serious allegations of corruption, maladministration, tampering of records, multiple and illegal allotments, encroachments, and embezzlement attributed to the erstwhile Managing Committee, as duly reflected in audit and inquiry reports of the years 2013 and 2014. It has been contended that the preceding Administrator, namely Syed Anwar Hussain Abidi, failed to effectively perform the functions entrusted to h im, whereupon the present Petitioner was appointed in his stead. The Petitioner asserts that, during the course of his tenure, he undertook substantial remedial and corrective measures, including removal of encroachments and resolution of complex land-related disputes, which efforts were duly acknowledged by the competent authorities through a letter of appreciation dated 18.10.2022. Subsequently, however, vide impugned communication dated 08.12.2022, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why h e should not be de -notified on the alleged ground of failure to complete the forensic audit. The Petitioner maintains that the said audit could not be finalized due to factors beyond his control, including lack of cooperation from relevant departments, pendency of litigation, and subsisting judicial restraints, including status quo orders passed in connected proceedings. Feeling
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 7 of 18
aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned communication, the Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learn ed counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned communication dated 08.12.2022 is illegal, mala fide, and without lawful authority, inasmuch as the Petitioner has been diligently discharging his assigned duties and any alleged failure to complete t he forensic audit is attributable solely to circumstances beyond his control, including non-cooperation by concerned authorities and judicial constraints. It is further contended that the Respondents have acted arbitrarily and in a contradictory manner, having recently acknowledged and appreciated the Petitioner’s performance, yet subsequently issuing the impugned communication without any cogent or lawful justification. It is argued that the impugned action has been taken without issuance of a proper sho w-cause notice, without specifying any concrete allegations, and without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, thereby constituting a clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10 -A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned counsel further submits that certain vested interests, including former members of the Managing Committee allegedly involved in corruption and unlawful occupation of land, are exerting undue influence upon the Respondents with a view to securing the removal of the Petitioner so as to regain control over the affairs of the Society. It is contended that any such removal would seriously undermine the ongoing corrective m easures and pave the way for further illegality. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned communication dated 08.12.2022 be declared null, void, and of no legal effect; the Petitioner be allowed to continue in office in terms o f the notification of his appointment; and appropriate directions be issued against those responsible for the prior mismanagement, in accordance with law.
10. In Constitutional Petition No. D -6158 of 2023, the Petitioners, professing themselves to be members and former office bearers of M/s. Azimabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, have impugned the act of supersession of the said Society by the Government of Sindh, effected through notifications dated 22.10.2014, whereby an Administrator was appointed without affording any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, in violation of settled principles of natural justice. It is contended that initially one Syed Anwar Hussain Abidi was appointed as Administrator, who was subsequently replaced
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 8 of 18
by Res pondent No. 4, namely Muhammad Asif Kaimkhani, who continues to occupy the said position to date. The Petitioners assert that in terms of Section 14 of the Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to conduc t elections within a period of one year from the date of supersession, extendable up to a maximum of two years; however, no such elections were conducted, and the administrative control has unlawfully persisted for an inordinate and excessive duration. It is further alleged that during the prolonged period of supersession, the Administrators, in collusion with the official Respondents, have grossly mismanaged the affairs of the Society, misappropriated its funds, inducted fictitious members through forged a nd fabricated documents, and instituted multiple litigations with a view to perpetuate and legitimize their unlawful control. Reliance is also placed upon a show -cause notice issued to the Administrator on allegations of mismanagement and abuse of authorit y, along with subsequent proceedings purportedly initiated through non -existent or fictitious members. According to the Petitioners, such actions have resulted in the unlawful deprivation of the legitimate rights of bona fide members and the illegal usurpation of the Society’s assets.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the supersession of the Society, as well as the appointment and continued tenure of the Administrators, are ex facie illegal, without lawful authority, and tainted with mala fides, being in direct contravention of Section 14 of the Ordinance, which mandates the holding of elections within the prescribed period. It is contended that the failure to conduct elections within such statutory timeframe renders the continuation of administrative control beyond 23.10.2015 coram non judice and without jurisdiction, and consequently, all subsequent acts, deeds, and decisions of the Administrators are void ab initio and of no legal consequence. It is further argued that it is a settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular mode for doing an act, the same must be done strictly in that manner and not otherwise. The Petitioners also allege that the Respondents, acting in concert, have committed grave illegalities, including forgery of official records, creation of fictitious memberships, misappropriation of funds, a nd manipulation of judicial proceedings, all aimed at sustaining their unlawful control over the Society. In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the impugned notifications and all subsequent actions taken pursuant thereto be declared illegal, void, an d without lawful
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 9 of 18
authority; that the elected management of the Society be restored through the holding of fresh elections in accordance with law; that the entire record of the Society be summoned before this Court; and that an independent inquiry be direct ed to be conducted by the competent anti-corruption authorities against the Administrators and other concerned officials.
12. In Constitutional Petition No. D-200 of 2025, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 is a duly registe red cooperative housing society comprising over 1,700 members, while Petitioner No. 2 claims to be its duly elected President, having been elected pursuant to an election process initiated by the Registrar through order dated 30.05.2024. It is contended th at, following a prolonged period of supersession since 2014 and the appointment of successive Administrators, elections were ultimately conducted under the supervision of an authorized Election Officer. In such process, nine candidates were declared electe d unopposed after due publication of the election schedule and in the absence of any objections. It is further averred that, upon assumption of office, the newly elected management lawfully commenced its functions; however, Respondent No. 16, along with hi s associates, allegedly engaged in unlawful interference, including extending threats, attempting to assume control of the Society’s record, and creating hindrances in the smooth administration of the Society. It is also contended that, despite approaching law enforcement agencies, no effective protection was afforded to the Petitioners. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued another order dated 11.12.2024 directing fresh elections, which, according to the Petitioners, is arbitrary, without lawful authority, and stands suspended by the Cooperative Court in Suit No. 2895/2024. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioners constitute the lawful and duly elected management of the Society, whose authority cannot be interfered with by unauthorized persons, includin g Respondent No. 16 and his associates. Such interference is alleged to be illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the Petitioners’ fundamental rights, particularly those relating to property and the lawful administration of the Society. It is furt her submitted that the inaction on the part of the official Respondents in providing requisite protection has emboldened unlawful elements, resulting in disruption of the Society’s functioning and a breakdown of law and order. Learned counsel has also assa iled the subsequent order dated 11.12.2024 as being mala fide, arbitrary, and intended to undermine the duly elected management. It is,
C.P. No.D-6273 of 2019 and others Page 10 of 18
therefore, prayed that the Petitioners be declared as the lawful management of the Society, that the private Respondents be restrained from interfering in its affairs, and that the official Respondents be directed to extend protection to the Petitioners as well as to the assets of the Society.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.