1. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.---In all the above three Constitutional petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:--
(i) To declare the direction of respondent No,1 to respondent No,2 to exclude the three parts of the machinery i.e. (i) Overhead Travelling Crane, (ii) Manually Operated Crane and (iii) Hand Operated Travelling Crane from the LMM Scheme as incompetent, illegal and without lawful authority.
(ii) The conversion of part debt equivalent to the price of the three parts of machinery, from LMM Scheme to LCY-GTF mark-up as illegal and in contravention of the LMM Scheme.
(iii) The imposition of the penalty in the context of the controversy as illegal and without lawful authority.
(iv) Direct respondents Nos.1 and 2 to treat the entire loan facility as subject to the LMM Scheme.
(v) Any other order appropriate under the circumstances.
2. ' The brief facts which are necessary for deciding these Constitutional petitions as summarized from the memos. Of petitions and the replication filed on behalf of respondent No, 1 State Bank of Pakistan are as under: ' That respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan had introduced a scheme for financing/purchase of locally manufactured machinery (LMM) in 1985. Changes/ amendments were made in this scheme from time to time to cater for the economic exigencies, to achieve effective use of the available resources and to check misuse of the financing. An amendment was made vide Circular No,1 dated 13-3-1988 defining the term "machinery" for which the financial facility could be granted. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portions from the aforesaid circular as under:-- "2. Finance under the Scheme shall be provided for such locally manufactured plant and machinery, including accessories thereof, as are used in the manufacturing process in the manufacturing industries, including mining industry. Cargo vessels and Ships shall also be eligible.
3. Consumer durables are not eligible. On being satisfied about the viability of ' the project, an approved DFI/ Nationalized Commercial Banks may provide financial assistance to the local purchaser at a concessional rate of return for financing the purchase of locally manufactured machinery subject to the following conditions:---
(i) If the CIF value of imported components used in a machine/equipment exceeds 80% of the FOB invoice value of the individual machine/equipment it shall not qualify for financing under the Scheme.
(ii) If CIF value of imported components wed in a machine/equipment does not exceed 80% of the FOB invoice value of the individual machine/ equipment, finance under the Scheme may be provided up to the amount of difference between the FOB invoice value and the CIF value of the imported components.
(iii) The provisions described under 2(i) and 2(11) above shall apply to machinery/equipment manufactured under authorized assembly-cum-progressive manufacture programme also.
(iv) Erection and commissioning charges shall not be financed under the Scheme. In case of turnkey projects, manufacturers should be asked to give separately the erection charges for their exclusion from financing under the Scheme"
4. ' From the above conditions the following deductions can be drawn:-- "(a) Only those machinery and accessories thereof which are to be used in the manufacturing process are eligible under the Scheme ; and
(b) other items which although may be of local origin and may form part of plant/machinery but if not involved in the manufacturing process will not be entitled to be financed under the Scheme."
5. C.P. No,D-2276 of 1992 ' Pursuant to the aforesaid LMM Scheme, the petitioners applied to the banking consortium consisting of; (i) Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as IDBP); (ii)
6. Bankers Equity Limited (hereinafter referred to as BEL); (iii) Habib Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as HBL); and (iv) National Development Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NDFC) who were authorized by respondent No,
1. State Bank of Pakistan to operate the LMM Scheme. The petitioners placed orders with the Heavy Mechanical Complex (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HMC) for purchase of machinery for setting up sugar mills on the terms and conditions contained in the agreements dated 26-4-1989 entered into between the petitioners and respondent No,2.
7. ' Financial assistance was provided to the tune of Rs.202,500,000. This amount of Rs.202,500,000 was reduced to Rs.191,918,740 and on account of the deduction in the cost of machinery, the scheduled amount of repayment was reduced from Rs.489.192,000 to Rs.460,604,328. Later on, respondent No,2 IDBP vide their letter dated 15/16 October, 1991 informed the petitioners that respondent No,1 had disallowed the cost of three items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant as finance facility for the said three items as well as erection/establishment of the plant was not to be granted under the LMM Scheme inadmissible under LMM Scheme. These items are as under:--
(a) Overhead travelling electric crane;
(b) Manually operated crane hoist; and
(c) Hand operated travelling crane. Consequently, the quantum of loan facilites was reduced by Rs.45,67,89.41, the break up of which is as under:--
(i) Rs.1,705,000 cost of the items of machiny/ equipments disallowed:
(ii) Rs.1,540,000 cost/expenses accruing on c ection and commissioning of the sugar manufacting
(iii) Rs.1,306,890.41 being the fine as per agreement; and
(iv) Rs.16,000.00 being verification charges. C.P. No,D-2277 OF 1992 ' Pursuant to the aforesaid LMM Scheme, the petitioners applied to the National Development Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NDFC) who were authorized by respondent No,1, State Bank of Pakistan to operate the LMM Scheme. The petitioners placed an order with HMC for purchase of machinery for setting up a sugar mill with a total cost of Rs.220,000,000 which represented the cost of the plant and accessories out of which Rs.75,000,000 was to be contributed by respondent No,2. According to the petitioners, respondent No,2 agreed to contribute the above amount of 75,000.000 which represented the contract price for the purchase of the machinery on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 24-9-1989 and were required to pay Rs.18.34,75,334 to respondent No,2 as mark-up of the machinery.
8. ' Subsequently, the finance. Facility was reduced to Rs.72,510,688 as cost of certain equipments did not come under LMM Scheme. Thereafter, respondent No,2 NDFC vide their letter dated 22-10-1991 informed the petitioners that respondent No,1 had disallowed the cost of three items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant as finance facility for the said three items as well as erection/establishment of the plant was Scheme inadmissible under LMM Scheme. These items are as under:--
(a) Overhead travelling electric crane;
(b) Manually operated crane hoist; and
(c) Hand operated travelling crane.
9. ' Consequently, the quantum of loan facility was reduced by Rs.24,89,312 being the cost of the above three items and penalty of 25% by respondent No,
1. The share of the second respondent out of the above amount was Rs.7,88,806.80, which it demanded from the petitioners. C.P. NO,D-2278 OF 1992 ' Pursuant to the aforesaid LMM Scheme, the petitioners applied to Messrs Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PICIC), respondents No,2, who were authorized by respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan to operate the LMM Scheme. The petitioners placed an order with HMC for purchase of machinery for setting up a sugar mill with a total cost of Rs.220,000,000 which represented the cost of the plant and accessories out of which Rs.75,000,000 was to be contributed by National Development Finance Corporation under a separate loan agreement and Rs.1,45,000,000 was to be contributed by respondent No,2. According to the petitioners, respondent No,2 agreed to contribute the above amount of Rs. 1,45,000,000 which represented the contract price for the purchase of the machinery on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 18-12-1989 they were required to pay Rs.240,876,381.72 to respondent No,2 towards repayment of the above loan together with mark-up thereon.
10. ' Subsequently, the finance facility was reduced to Rs.137,280,674.60 as cost of certain equipments did not come under LMM Scheme. Respondent No,2 PICIC vide their letter dated 4-11-1991 informed the petitioners that respondent No,1 had disallowed three items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant as finance facility for the said three items as well as erection/establishment of the plant was not to be granted under the LMM Scheme inadmissible under LMM Scheme. These items as under:--
(a) Overhead travelling electric crane:
(b) Manually operated crane hoist; and
(c) Hand operated travelling crane.
11. ' Consequently, the quantum of loan facility was reduced by Rs.4,813.460 being the cost of the above three items, penalty of 25% by respondent No,1 and consultancy charges.
12. ' Actions for imposition of fines and conversion of the amount of loan/finance facility relating to the cost of the above three items of machinery/equipments as well as the cost of erection/setting up of the sugar plant was taken by respondent No,1 in pursuance of Clause V, para.20 of Part III (Fines for default) of the LMM Scheme/Policy and Article VII(C) of the Agreements.
13. ' The petitioners in reply to the aforesaid letters explained to respondent No,2 IDBP in C.P. No,D-2276 of 1992 that aforesaid three items were integral and essential parts for creating/setting up a sugar manufacturing plant and being locally manufactured were to be included under the LMM Scheme but respondent No,2 did not accept the version of the petitioners and directed them to approach respondent No,1, State Bank of Pakistan directly. The petitioners had also forwarded a Certificate which they had obtained from HMC certifying that the aforesaid three items which were disallowed/taken out of the LMM Scheme were integral parts of the sugar mill manufacturing plant and requested respondent No,2 to reconsider the whole matter as the aforesaid three items were included as part of sugar mill plant under LMM Scheme in the cases of Messrs Dewan, Chishtia, Sindh and Abadgar Sugar Mills but to no avail. Consequently, the petitioners approached respondent No,1, State Bank of Pakistan explaining. To them that the aforesaid three items were integral part of the sugar manufacturing plant and were entitled to be included for concession under LMM Scheme and also drew their attention to the Certificate issued by HMC but their requests were turned down by respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan on the ground that Consultant Messrs National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Nespak) had categorically given a decision that the aforesaid three items did not form part of the sugar manufacturing process as such were not to be included in the LMM Scheme. Respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan further stated that according to the terms of the agreement, the decision/opinion of Messrs Nespak as to the question whether certain machinery/equipments would fall under LMM Scheme was to be final, thus rejecting the requests of the petitioners to include the ' aforesaid three items of machinery in the LMM Scheme. The petitioners further submitted that as no other remedy was available to them for settlement of the dispute involved herein, they had no option but to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
14. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Farid, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the three petitions, Mr. Abrar Hasan, Advocate for respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan in all the three petitions, Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate for respondents No,2, IDBP in C.P. No,D- 2276 of 1992, Mr. Masood Anwar Ausaf, Advocates for respondents No,2, NDFC in C.P. No,D2277 of 1992 and have also perused the material on record and relevant provisions of law.
15. ' The entire thrust of arguments of Mr. Muhammad Farid was that the three machineries/equipments, which were excluded from LMM Scheme were integral and essential part of sugar manufacturing plant as without these components/items sugar manufacturing plant could not to be installed and being integral and essential part they were essentially required to be financed under the LMM Scheme. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the Certificates issued by HMC dated 4-2-1992 and 8/14-6-1992. These Certificates were issued by General Manager (S&M Division). In the Certificate dated 4-2-1992, it was certified that machineries/equipments namely, (i) Overhead travelling crane; (ii) Manually operated crane; and
(iii) Hand operated travelling cranes were supplied to Messrs Sakrand Sugar Mills and the same were also supplied to other sugar mills as well against their contracts which were financed by D.F.I.'s under LMM Scheme. It was also certified that the machineries/ equipments were part of the plant and were manufactured locally by HMC. In the Certificate dated 8/14-6-1992, it was certified that these were manufactured locally by HMC. In the Certificate dated 8/14-6-1992, it was certified that the aforesaid three machineries/equipments were essential equipments required for setting up a sugar plant for manufacturing sugar. It was further certified that these three machineries/equipments were supplied to other sugar mills and were financed by D:F.I.'s under, LMM Scheme. Mr.. Muhammad Farid. Further submitted that in respect of some other sugar mills.
16. Respondents had not excluded the aforesaid three machineries/ equipments from the list of machineries/equipments supplied by HMC and the petitioners were discriminated by denial of a facility which had been allowed to other sugar manufacturing industries. In this connection. He referred to the cases of Khairpur, Chishtia and Ma tiari Sugar Mills.
17. ' Mr. Abrar Hasan, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No,1, State Bank of Pakistan objected to the maintainability of the Constitutional petitions on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and any of the respondents as the issue whether the three items of machineries/equipments were to be treated as part of the sugar manufacturing process so as to be included in the LMM Scheme had never been discussed with the petitioners and the same was an issue between respondents Nos.1 and 2.
18. ' On merits, he submitted that respondents State Bank of Pakistan after a thorough investigation and verification had come to the conclusion that the aforesaid three items of machineries/equipments did not form part of the sugar manufacturing process as a result of which they could not be included in the machineries/equipments required to be purchased for setting up a sugar manufacturing plant, thus their purchase could not be financed under the LMM Scheme. Mr. Abrar Hasan further submitted that according to the contract/agreement entered into between the parties, it was agreed that any dispute between the parties would be referred to Messrs Nespak who were deputed to verify whether the aforesaid three machineries/equipments were part of the sugar manufacturing process irrespective of the fact that they formed part of the sugar manufacturing plant whereafter they submitted their Certificate stating that the aforesaid three machineries/equipments were not involved in the sugar manufacturing process though they were essential for installation of the sugar manufacturing plant. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Abrar Hassan submitted that the Constitutional petitions were without any substance and were liable to be dismissed.
19. ' Messrs Altaf Hussain, and Mr. Masood Anwar Ausaf. Advocates appearing on behalf of respondents No,2, I.D.B.P. And N.D.F.C. In C. Ps. Nos.D-2276 and D-2277 of 1992 respectively adopted the arguments of Mr. Abrar Hasan and submitted that the petitions were liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondents as none of the respondents had approached the petitioners for realizing the cost of the three items, expenses incurred on erection and commission of the three items, fine and verification charges.
20. ' The question to be decided is as to what machineries/equipments were to be included in the LMM Scheme. The relevant provisions of LMM Scheme had already been reproduced hereinabove. From a bare perusal of the provisions of the scheme, it is to be noted that finance was to be provided for purchase of locally manufactured plant and machinery, including accessories thereof, which were used or involved in the actual manufacturing process in the manufacturing industries under LMM Scheme. In order to include the above three machineries/equipments under LMM Scheme, it was incumbent for the petitioners to establish that they were integral or essential part or were involved in the sugar manufacturing process. It is also clear that erection and commission charges were not to be financed under LMM Scheme and a provision was made whereby in case of turnkey projects, manufacturers were required to give separately the erection charges for their exclusion from financing under the LMM Scheme. From the above, it is absolutely clear that only those machineries/equipments which were to be used or were involved in the sugar manufacturing process could be included in the LMM Scheme. If these machineries/equipments did not form part of the manufacturing process, then irrespective of the fact that they were essential for erecting or setting up a sugar processing plant, would not bring them within the scope of the scheme and finance could not be provided for them. The Certificates issued by HMC do not in any manner establish that these three machineries/equipments were integral part of the manufacturing process without which manufacturing of sugar would not have been possible. What can be made out from the Certificates issued by HMC is that these three machineries/ equipments were essential for erection or setting up of a sugar manufacturing plant. The contention that in the absence of the three items of machineries/equipments the sugar manufacturing plant could not be set up on account of which these three items of machineries/equipments had assumed great importance requiring to be financed under the LMM Scheme, is without any substance. The requirements of the scheme are very clear and unless the machineries/equipments formed part of the manufacturing process in manufacturing industries they could not be financed under the LMM Scheme irrespective of the fact that in the absence of the three items of machineries/ equipments the sugar manufacturing plant could not be set up and commissioned. From a perusal of the Scheme, it is also beyond any doubt that cost of erection and commission charges were not to be financed under the LMM Scheme and finance facility therefor was riot in accordance with the LMM Scheme.
21. ' With regard to Mr. Farid's contention that it would not appear to be the intention of the respondents and would also be very unreasonable and illogical to hold that the respondents while providing a facility to the citizens would exclude essential and necessary items of machineries/equipments from the finance scheme. Without which a manufacturing plant could not be set up and commissioned, it is to be noted that the Courts while interpreting and examining the terms and conditions of a document laying down a policy and the agreement entered into between the parties are required to give plain meaning to the language and words used in the policy document/ agreement for determining the intention of the framers of the policy/parties to the agreement. It is not the job of the Courts to give or imply a meaning or anything which cannot be supported by the language and the words of the document merely because one of the parties thought that it would be unreasonable, illogical and unjust to imply the meaning sought by the party who had framed the policy. In support of the above proposition reliance is placed on the case of HBFC v. Shehinshah Humayun Cooperative House Building Society and others reported in 1992 SCM R 19. In this case the Supreme Court while examining the question of interpretation of documents propounded that in construing the deeds, the words are to be taken in their literal, plain and ordinary meaning. Such plain and ordinary meaning is ,to be avoided only if it leads to ambiguity or absurdity enabling the Court to modify the ordinary and plain meaning to avoid such ambiguity and absurdity. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, it is to be seen that the plain and ordinary meanings of the words used in the scheme do not result in any ambiguity or absurdity as was submitted Mr. Farid. It was the clear and unambiguous, intention of the framers of the scheme not to include the items 'of. Machineries/ equipments which did not forth integral part of the manufacturing process and such, interpretation does not operate against the rules of interpretation of documents. The argument that it would be very unreasonable, illogical and unrealistic to exclude the three items of machineries/ equipments from being financed under" the LMM Scheme as in their absence sugar processing -plant' could not be erected or set up carries no weight as while interpreting the contents of the documents, the Courts are required to ascertain the intention from the words used therein and it is not open to them to see the reasonableness logic or the advantages which would have accrued to a party if the interpretation sought by it had been accepted. The fact. That the framers of the LMM Scheme did not include the above three items of machineries/equipments for being financed under the LMM Scheme in our view does not ,create or amount to absurdity or unreasonableness as it was a policy decision which is clearly spelt out from the words used in the policy document as well as from the contents of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent No,2. We may also refer to the case of Zaman Cement Company Private Limited v. Central Board of Revenue reported in 2002 SCM R 312 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view on the principles of interpretation of documents declaring that in construing contracts the real question was the meaning of the language and further that grammatical meaning was the meaning to be adopted unless there was reason to the contrary.
22. ' Regarding the contention of discrimination as submitted by Mr. Muhammad Farid that certain other sugar mills namely, Khairpur, Chishtia and Matiari were also provided the finance facility for purchase of the aforesaid three machineries/equipments, it is to be observed that respondent No,1 along with replication had annexed photostat copies of the reports prepared by Nespak in respect of Chishtia and Matiari Sugar Mills. After going through the aforesaid two reports, we find that the aforesaid three machineries/equipments were not treated as part of manufacturing process in respect of both Chishtia and Matiari Sugar Mills. The contention of Mr. Muhammad Farid that the petitioners have been discriminated in determination of the disputed three items as inadmissible for the finance facility under LMM Scheme is, thus, devoid of force inasmuch as the three disputed items/machineries/equipments were also not included in the sugar manufacturing plant for the finance facility under the LMM Scheme granted/allowed to other sugar manufacturing plants.
23. ' The next contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Farid, Advocate was that respondents had allowed the finance facility under the LMM Scheme for purchase of the machinery/items specified in the schedule 1.0 the Agreement which included three above items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant and by doing wo they had taken a decision which had been acted upon inasmuch as respondent No,2 in all the cases had allowed the finance facilities to the extent claimed by the petitioners inclusive of the cost of the above three items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/ setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant whereby arid the petitioners were estopped from claiming that the finance facilities were wrongly allowed or were contrary to the provisions of the LMM Scheme/Policy or the agreements on the principle of locus poenitentiae. Elaborating his arguments, he submitted that the petitioners had placed their respective orders for purchase of machineries through HMC as per the schedules attached to the agreements, which included the above three items of machineries/equipments as well as cost of erection/ setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant and if the above three items of machineries/equipments as well as the cost of erection/setting up was not covered by the LMM Scheme then these items should have been deleted from the schedule of the machinery and no finance facility should have been provided therefor. He further submitted that in spite of the knowledge that the three items of machineries as well as the cost of erection/setting up was not covered by the LMM Scheme and/or the agreement, the respondents included the same and now they would not be permitted to claim that the aforesaid three items were not to be included in the finance facility to be provided under the LMM Scheme. Mr. Muhammad Farid in support of his above contention placed reliance on the cases of (1) Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi reported in PLD 1969 SC 407 and (2) The Engineer-in-Chief Branch and another v. Jalaluddin reported in PLD 1992 SC 207. This argument had been vehemently assailed by Messrs Abrar Hasan, Altaf Hussain and Masood Anwar Ausaf, Advocates for respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively. S.H.O.
24. Submitted that the principle of locus poenitentiae was applicable to official orders which were passed legally and in accordance with the provisions of law but it did not apply to official orders/decision, which were clearly in flagrant violation of any provision of law, rules, regulations or other legal documents. In support of the above contention they placed reliance on the case of Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department Karachi and 3 others, reported in 2000 SCM R 907.
25. ' After considering the respective arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the . Case-law relied upon by them, it is to be seen that 'principle of locus poenitentiae is the power of rescinding till a decisive step was taken emphasizing that it was not a rigid principle of law that an order once passed became irrevocable and past and closed transaction. For this concept to be applicable it is a requirement that the order or decision in respect of which irrevocability is claimed must have been a legal and valid order. In respect of an illegal order the principle of locus poenitentiae would not be available. In the present case the action of respondents No,2 in allowing finance facility for purchase of the above three items of machinery as well as the cost of erection/setting up of the sugar mill plant was in violation of the LMM Scheme made by respondent No,1 as well as contrary to the provisions of the agreement entered into between the parties, which effected its legality and propriety. A facility allowed on the basis of the above illegality could not be allowed on the principle propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department Karachi and 3 others (supra), that rights could not be gained on the basic of an illegal order. It may also be pointed out that the petitioners and respondent No,2 had entered into an agreement which contained terms and conditions relating to the allowance of the finance facility, repayment thereof, mark-up, penalty and fines for violation of terms and conditions of the agreement and it would be doubtful as to whether the action taken in pursuance of the agreements arrived at between the above parties would attract the principle of locus poenitentiae.
26. It is also to be observed that the petitioners had placed an order for purchase of machineries/equipments on HMC, who had supplied a list of machineries/equipments to respondent No,2, which according to them was necessary for running of the sugar manufacturing plant." Respondent No,2 allowed finance facilities for all the items of machineries/equipments mentioned in the schedule in the belief that all of them were to be used in the plant for manufacturing sugar and were covered by the LMM Scheme. Respondent No,2, accordingly, granted finance facilities to the petitioners for payment of the cost of all the items of machineries/equipments. A scrutiny was made by respondent No,1 relating to the items of machineries/ equipments supplied by HMC whereupon it was found that the items of machineries/equipments contained the aforesaid three items which were not part of the plant for manufacturing sugar and were not covered by the LMM Scheme. In the circumstances, it were the petitioners themselves who had acted in violation of the provisions of the LMM Scheme and terms and conditions of the agreements. The petitioners had full knowledge of the LMM Scheme and terms and conditions of the agreements and were aware as to what items of machineries/equipments were covered for financing under the LMM Scheme and items of machineries/equipments though essential or integral for erection/setting up of the sugar plant but not actually related to the sugar manufacturing process as well as the cost of erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant were not to be financed under the LMM Scheme. In spite of this they got included the above three items of machineries/equipments in the list of machineries to be financed under the LMM Scheme (for the above, reference is made to the letter of respondent No,2 dated 22.-10-1991 in C.P. No,D-2277 of 1992 and letter dated 19-2-1992 of the petitioners in C.P. No,D- 2278 of 1992). In view of these facts the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the principle of locus poenitentiae. This contention is, therefore, without any substance.
27. ' Messrs Abrar Hasan and Altaf Hussain and Mr. Masood Anwar Ausaf, counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively had vehemently objected to the maintainability of these Constitutional petitions on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondents.
28. Elaborating their arguments, they submitted that LMM Scheme had been launched at the instance of respondent No,1 and for providing finance, a consortium of banks and D.F.I.'s had been constituted. Respondent No,1 had laid down the salient features for providing finances and had also provided penalties for violation of the contents of the LMM Scheme and the contracts which were to be in accordance with the requirement of the LMM Scheme. They further submitted that respondent No,2 in violation of the LMM Scheme and the agreement/contract entered into by it with the petitioners allowed financial facility for purchase of the three items of machineries/ equipments which admittedly did not form part of the sugar manufacturing process and as well as allowed finance facility for bearing the cost of erection and commissioning of the sugar plant, which, according to the scheme and the contracts, were not to be financed under the said scheme thus rendering themselves liable to punitive action as per requirement of the terms of the contract.
29. It was in this background that respondent No,1 had issued direction to respondent No,2 to withdraw the financial facility to the extent of the cost of the three items of machineries/equipments not forming part of the sugar manufacturing process-plant as well as the cost incurred on erection/setting up of the sugar manufacturing plant and had also imposed penalty for violating the terms of the LMM Scheme and the contract. They submitted that. Therefore, this was a dispute between respondents Nos.1 and 2, and the petitioners had no locus standi. This contention is without any substance in the presence of a valid contract between the petitioners and respondent No,2 in terms of the LMM Scheme as a result of which the petitioners would have locus standi to agitate the matter before a proper forum.
30. ' Messrs Abrar Hasan, Altaf Hussain and Masood Anwar Ausaf, Advocates for respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively also assailed the maintainability of these Constitutional petitions on the ground that the grievances/ disputes involved were the outcome of violation of the terms and conditions of agreements entered into between the petitioners and respondent No,2 and submitted that it was a settled principle of law that violation of the terms and conditions of agreement or the grievances/disputes arising out of the agreements entered into between the parties would not entitled the aggrieved party to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for redress of his grievances/disputes. In support of his above contention he placed reliance on the cases of (1)
31. Muhammad Mumtaz Masud and 2 others v. House Building Finance Corporation and 2 others reported in 1994 SCM R 2287 and (2) Mst. Saboohi v. Ghulam Da stagir reported in 1995 M LD 1402.
32. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 do not merit consideration in view of the emphatic and categorical pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others reported in 1998 SCM R 2268. In this case the Supreme Court observed that while routine contractual disputes between private parties and public functionaries were not open to scrutiny under the Constitutional jurisdiction, breaches of such contracts, which did not entail inquiry into or examination 'of minute or controversial questions of fact, if committed by Government. Semi-Government or Local Authorities or like controversies if involving dereliction of obligations, flowing from a statute, rules or instructions could adequately be addressed to for relief under, the Constitutional jurisdiction. In the present case the grievance of the petitioners is violation of the policy/scheme made by respondents No,1 as well as violation of the agreement entered into between them and respondent No,2, which is an official functionary and the grievance of the petitioners is on account of violation of the Scheme/Policy as well as the terms and conditions of the agreements, which do riot require minute and detailed inquiry or examination and can be decided on the basis of the documents/material on record. In the circumstances, the pronouncements, made in the case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others, (supra), is applicable on all fours to the facts of this case. Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
33. ' For the foregoing reasons and discussion, we are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Muhammad Farid that respondents State Bank of Pakistan had acted illegally and in contravention of the provisions of law in excluding the aforesaid three machineries/equipments from the LMM Scheme, withdrawing the finance facility from the LMM Scheme and converting the same to LCYGTF mark-up in respect of the above three machineries/ equipments; and imposition of fine. These Constitutional petitions are without any substance and do not merit consideration. By a short order dated 23-4-2003, they were dismissed for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order.