2002 PLP 186 (CLD)

The petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition seeking directions to the respondent‑Bank to allow the petitioners to take the benefit of the incentive scheme introduced by the respondent‑Bank.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that a decree for recovery of Rs.4,00,203.50 was passed by respondent No.. 2 against the petitioners, but the decretal amount could not be liquidated by the petitioners on account of adverse financial circumstances. It has been narrated in the writ petition that the respondent‑Bank introduced an incentive scheme, whereunder the borrowers, who obtained the loans below Rs.5,00,000, were granted all time relief of mark‑up. The petitioners statedly filed an application under section 15(2) of the Act XV of 1997 and requested the learned Banking Court for the benefit of the Scheme. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have paid a total sum of Rs.6,01,100 and maximum an amount of Rs.1,06,600 was outstanding against the petitioners out of which the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in the Banking Court. The respondent No.2 has not acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the circular, therefore, the petitioners are being meted out with discriminatory treatment which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000 under the incentive scheme which was the principal amount and now nothing is to be recovered from them in accordance with the terms of circular dated 24‑3‑1999 issued by the respondent‑Bank (annexed‑B). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said circular, of course, is applicable to the petitioners and according to the terms of the said circular, a sum of Rs.1,50,000 is still outstanding against the petitioners and if they undertake to pay this amount, the bank is ready to abandon the execution proceedings and will close their accounts as being satisfied.

4. After addressing the arguments at some length both the learned counsel agreed that since the controversial question of accounts are involved in this case, therefore, the Banking Court may be directed to determine the amount, if any, payable by the petitioners to the A respondent‑Bank according to the circular dated 24‑3‑1999. The request is reasonable, lawful and is in the interest of justice.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the learned Banking Court‑II to determine the liability, if any of the petitioners according to the terms of circular dated 24‑3‑1999 issued by the respondent Bank after taking into account the amounts already deposited by the petitioners in their accounts and under the orders of the Banking Court/this Court. There is no order as to costs. S.A.K./M.A.K./M‑857/L Petition accepted.