2004 PLP 435 (CLD)

Rana Muhammad Asad Abbas for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 1st December, 2003. The grievance raised in the present Constitutional petition is that petitioner's application to respondent No.3 i.e. Soneri Bank Limited to avail of the incentive, offered under State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.29 dated October 15, 2002, was declined. The matter was thus referred to SBP Committee for Resolution of Disputes' established under the above referred Circular. Through letter dated May 19, 2003, SBP Committee also declined to consider petitioner's case under the above said Circular No.29.

2. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the respondents specified the reason for their decision against the petitioner.

3. Respondents filed their reports and parawise comments. Respondent No.3 i.e. Soneri Bank Limited is also represented through their learned counsel. On 20‑10‑2003, Mr. Wasal Khan, A.D. (Legal), State Bank of Pakistan, also appeared before the Court and sought time. However, no one has appeared on behalf of State Bank of Pakistan today. Under these circumstances, respondent No. 1 i.e. State Bank of Pakistan, is proceeded agains ex-parte.

4. With the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner and that of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, facts of the present case, reports and parawise comments filed by the respondents have been examined. The order of Disputes Resolution Committee denying benefits of incentive scheme to the petitioner was conveyed to the petitioner through letter dated May, 19, 2003. This only states as under:‑‑ . "After hearing both Bank and borrowers, the Committee decided that the case is not eligible for settlement under SBP Guidelines."

5. Confronted with above blank refusal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 was unable to defend the impugned order and admitted that no specific or particular reasons were given therein for purported ineligibility of the B petitioner. Even in report and parawise comments, no particular reason to hold the petitioner disentitled for settlement under the State Bank of Pakistan Guidelines, has been given. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties jointly requested for declaring the impugned order conveyed through letter dated 19‑5‑2003 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect with direction to SBP Committee for Resolution of Disputes to state specific reasons for petitioner's purported ineligibility or otherwise for their decision.

6. In view thereof, this petition is, treated as an admitted /'Pacca' case and is accepted in above terms. The impugned decision conveyed through letter dated 19‑5‑2003 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. SBP Committee for Resolution of Disputes shall reconsider and re-decide the matter after hearing representatives of the parties and shall state reasons for any decision that they may arrive at. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./A‑4/L Order accordingly.