2004 PLP 1286 (CLD)

Through this Constitutional petition, petitioners had prayed for a direction to the respondent/Zari Tarqiati Bank of Pakistan, Faisal Avenue Zero Point, Islamabad to extend the benefit of the Relief Package announced by said respondent, on 17-10-2000, with further relief to return the Pass-Books and issue a clearance certificate and also to return the extra amount paid by the petitioners.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petitioner are that the petitioners obtained a loan amounting to Rs.1,40,000 from the respondent-Bank, Jehania Branch in the year 1989 for purchase of a tractor vide loan Account No.1C-010944/284/4 Which was to be repaid uptill 7-7-1997 by the instalments each amounting to Rs.27,650; that petitioners paid Rs.2,04,617 uptill 30-6-1999 while in the year 2000, respondent had floated a Relief Package for recovery of its dues to clear maximum portfolio of non-performing loan. In pursuance of said package petitioner submitted an application and notice was issued to the petitioners for the payment of 20% as down payment uptill 30-11-2000, accordingly petitioners deposited the amount of Rs.19,500 by 30-11-2000 with the Mobile Credit Office who issued a receipt on the same day after receiving the said amount, but in spite of the fact that the petitioners had fulfilled all the conditions, when he applied for the instant scheme within time, he had been refused to give relief under the said relief package by the respondents on the pretext that afore-referred amount of Rs.19,500 was deposited by the Mobile Credit Officer on 1-12-2000 instead of 30-11-2000 and thereafter they had adjusted the amount towards the return in column of credit, while Rs.4,398 towards principal amount. Aggrieved by this conduct of the respondents, petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that as they had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Relief Package announced by the respondents, therefore, respondents be directed to extend the benefit of aforementioned package to them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was the duty of the public functionaries to decide the application of a citizen without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.

4. In response to notice issued, Rana Muhammad Jamil, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that petitioners deposited the amount beyond the target date, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to take benefit of the said package.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

6. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case and of maintainability of this Constitutional petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would not press this petition if a direction be issued to respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioners in view of incentive scheme strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this proposal:

7. Accordingly, let a copy of this petition alongwith all the annexures be sent to respondent No.2 who shall look into the matter personally and pass a appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to the petitioners.

8. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. M.B.A./M-561/L Order accordingly.