' Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner, admittedly, availed a loan facility, from the respondent-Corporation and the same has, statedly, been paid by the petitioner. It has been stated in the petition that now respondent-Corporation has served a notice to the petitioner as well as to his surety namely Waheed Ahmad son of Rashid Ahmad, thereby demanding the payment of Rs.1,14,037 from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has approached respondent No,1, on many occasions and requested him to settle the accounts, but all his efforts proved abortive and respondent No,1 is not adhering to the persistent requests of the petitioner. Apprehending the adoption of coercive measures by the hands of respondent- Corporation, the petitioner has resorted to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner in fact has paid more than the principal amount and the balance amount, claimed by the respondent-Corporation, is only interest, which is in fact "Riba" thus cannot be recovered as the same has been declared as un-Islamic by the superior Courts. He has further submitted that the respondent-Bank failed to provide statement of accounts to the petitioner and to give benefits of the incentive schemes to him, issued by respondent-Bank and State Bank of Pakistan.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner availed the financial facility from the respondent-Corporation and executed different agreements/documents of his own free-will. The petitioner wants enforcement of those agreements/documents through the filing of the present Constitutional petition, which is not permissible under the law as per principle laid down in Mumtaz Masud's case 1994 SCM R 2287.
4. So far as the charging of interest/mark-up is concerned, suffice it to say, that this Court in view of Article 203(G) of the Constitution has got no power or jurisdiction, under the law, to determine the same as per principle laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Citibank N.A.
2001 CLC 158. Furthermore, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khakhi v. Syed Muhammad Hashim and 2 others PLD 2000 SC 225, has held that no doubt interest/ Riba is un-Islamic, but past and closed transactions cannot be reopened.
5. In addition to that, the petitioner is, admittedly, a "customer", therefore, he can file a suit for the redressal of his alleged grievance before the learned Banking Court under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, thus, an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the petitioner. The present petition is hit by Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore not competent.
6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel to the effect that the statement of accounts has not been provided to the petitioner, and that he has paid the principal amount, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to settle his accounts/matter. In view of this, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Manager of the respondent-Corporation on 17-5-2002, to discharge his liabilities strictly in accordance with law, rules and the terms of the agreement. The Manager of respondent-Corporation is directed to ' give benefits/concessions to the petitioner of the incentive schemes, issued by the respondent-Bank off and on, in case the petitioner's case falls within the parameters and four corners of the incentive scheme and to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and rules after hearing the petitioner. Till the determination of the actual "amount due" against the petitioner, as noted above, which exercise must be completed within 30 days from 17-5-2002, the respondent-Corporation is restrained to take any action or coercive measures, for the recovery of said outstanding amount, against the petitioner and his sureties.
7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.