2001 PLP 1494 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Disputed question of fact‑‑‑High Court has no jurisdiction to resolve such question in exercise of Constitutional. jurisdiction. Muhammad Younas Khan's case 1993 SCMR 618 rel. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Alternate remedy‑‑‑Contractual obligation‑‑‑ Petitioners obtained loan from the respondent‑Bank and repaid almost the principal amount‑‑‑Balance amount was alleged to be interest which was un‑Islamic‑‑‑Petitioners raised the plea that as interest was against the Injunctions of Islam, the respondent‑Bank could not recover the balance amount ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioners had alternate remedies under the law either to approach the respondent‑Bank or to file civil suit before competent Court‑‑ High Court directed the petitioners to approach the respondent‑Bank to discharge their liabilities strictly in accordance with law, rules and Notification read with terms of the agreement‑‑‑High Court further directed the respondent‑Bank to allow the petitioners any benefit/concession permissible in law and' to consider the request of the petitioners to discharge their liability in easy instalments‑‑‑Petition was disposed or accordingly. Mehmood‑ur‑Rehman's case PLD 1992 FSC 1; Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case PLD 2000 SC 225; Muhammad Younas Khan's case 1993 SCMR 618 and Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246 ref. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner. I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law‑ W.P. No.7161‑2001, W.P. No.7125‑2001 Briefly, the facts of the cases are that the petitioners secured loan from the respective respondents; agreements were also executed between the petitioners and respective respondents; according to the terms and conditions of the agreements the petitioners had to repay the loan to the respective respondents in easy instalments.

3. The petitioners' counsel submit that petitioners had repaid almost all the principal amount to the respective respondents. They urged that balance amount claimed by the respective respondents is interest which has already been declared un‑Islamic by the superior Courts. In support of their contentions they relied upon Mehmood‑ur‑Rehman's case (PLD 1992 FSC 1) and Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case (PLD 2000 SC 225). They further urged that action of respondents is in violation of mandatory provisions of A.D.B. Ordinance, 1961 and SBFC Act; that respondents failed to determine the outstanding amount of petitioner and failed to provide statement of accounts; the respondents failed to consider the cast of petitioners under the incentive scheme; the respondents also failed to allow the petitioner to discharge their liabilities in easy instalments. The respondents have no authority to initiate proceedings to recover the outstanding amount by adopting coercive measure or to issue impugned notice to the petitioner or under the provisions of A.D.B. Ordinance, 1961 House Building Finance Corporation Act. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Advocate in W.P. No.7161‑2001, has alleged serious allegations against respondents Nos.3 to

5. He alleged that petitioner had already repaid Rs.1,12,298 in the year 1993 or 1994 as is evident from para 3 of the writ petition and also alleged that petitioner had repaid Rs.6,66,798 to the respondent Bank as is evident from para 3 of the writ petition; that fifty bags weighing one maund in each bag priced Rs.40,000 had also been taken by respondents and petitioner is penalized by the inaction of respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the petitioners and respective respondents executed agreements of their own sweet will. The petitioners want enforcement of agreement through these Constitutional petitions which is not permissible in the eyes of law as the principle laid down in Mumtaz Masood's case (1994 SCMR 2287). As far as the charge of interest is concerned, this Court in view of Article 203‑G of the Constitution has got no authority to determine the same as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Ramzan's case (2000 CLC 158). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Muhammad Aslam Khaki has held that no doubt interest/ribs is un‑Islamic but past and closed transactions are not to be re‑opened. It is also settled principle of law that writ petition against show cause notice is not maintainable as is held; in Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 SC 360). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact as is held in Muhammad Younas Khan's case (1993 I SCMR 618). It is also admitted fact that petitioners have alternate remedies under the law either to approach the respondents or to file civil suit before the competent Court. In this view of the matter writ petitions are not maintainable as the law laid down in Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 SC 246). The petitioner's counsel have argued that petitioners have already paid more than, principal amount to the respective respondents, therefore, balance amount claimed by the respective respondents is not borne out from the record of petitioner and respondents failed to supply copy of statement of accounts to petitioners. The respondents also failed to consider the cases of petitioners under incentive scheme issued by respondents off and on In this view of the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Manager I of respective respondents on 16‑5‑2001 to discharge their liabilities strictly to accordance with law, rules and notification read with terms of the agreement The Manager of respective respondents shall allow them any benefit/concession permissible in such like cases under the law, rules and notification. The Manager of respective‑respondents shall also consider the request of petitioners to discharge their liabilities in easy instalments in the interest of respective respondents and to save the families of petitioner from destructions. The Manager of respective respondents as already directed would determine liabilities strictly in accordance with law and rules. Till determination which of course would be completed expeditiously till 16‑7‑2001, the petitioners shall not be harassed till the aforesaid date. In Writ Petition No.7161 of 2001, the petitioner has alleged specific allegations against respondents Nos.3 to 5, in this view of the matter, let a copy of writ petition be sent to Regional Manager of A.D.B.P Faisalabad Division, in the interest of justice and fair play, who is directed to constitute a high powered committee to probe into the matter which shall complete the process within two months and in case the petitioners are justified, then he shall initiate departmental action against the responsible officers/officials and also get criminal cases be registered against them. Writ petitions are disposed of. Q.M.H./T‑34/L Order accordingly.