' Through this writ petition Syed Manzoor Hussain, the petitioner, who had obtained a loan facility of Rs.2,51,000 under A/C No,103434 in the year 1992-93 has challenged the claim/demand being made by respondent-Bank, on the basis of a letter/Circular No,RD/8/2000 dated 4-12-2000 as he had fulfilled all the conditions of relief package, as publicized through Circular No,RD/9/2000 dated 17-10-2000.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner, who had obtained the above mentioned loan from respondent No,1 had already repaid an amount of Rs.2,57,200 against the loan amount and was defaulter of two instalments uptil 17-10-2000. In the meantime a Circular No,RD/9/2000 dated 17-10-2000 was advertised by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan in which clause (ii) had offered to all the loanees, who had defaulted in the payment of two or more instalments on 16-10-2000 to be eligible to get the benefit of relief package. As the case of the petitioner had fallen within that clause, therefore, the petitioner had applied for that before the prescribed period to respondent No,1, who had after holding the case of the petitioner to have been encompassed by that relief package, received an amount of Rs.27,104 through receipt No,16 dated 20-10-2000 and in the Account Books Registers of the Bank closed the account of the petitioner but afterwards the respondents have initiated proceedings for the recovery of amount considering due against the petitioner as a defaulted loanee. As per learned counsel, the respondents have got no authority/power to claim any amount from the petitioner after the payment was made and the account was closed in accordance with the circular of 17-10-2000.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that after the issuance of circular dated 17-10-2000, the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan had issued another circular/ letter of 17-10-2000 explaining the earlier circular on 4-12-2000 as noted above. According to the learned counsel the instalment, which was to be paid up to 7-7-2000 was not to be considered as default in the instalment due as per circular/letter of 4-12-2000. So, according to the respondents, the case of the petitioner had not fallen with the relief package of 17-10-2000 and so the petitioner was bound to pay the amount, which according to the respondents had become to the extent of Rs.2,49,590 up to 30-6-2004.
4. After considering the arguments of both the learned counsels and the scanning of the record my conclusions are based on the following reasons. By advertising a relief/incentive package to the loanees on 17-10-2000, through the circular (noted above) the respondent-Bank has invited the loanees to apply for that. This was an offer made by the respondent-Bank to the loanees, the acceptance of this offer and payment of the amount in compliance of that offer had created a valuable vested right in the loanee, from which the package/incentive Bank, was not authorized/empowered to deviate through a mechanism of bringing out a clarification circular and making the offer acted upon to be ineffective especially when the offer was accepted by the loanee. It may be pointed out here that the loanee had accepted the offer made through circular/letter dated 17-10-2000 indicated above and Fad acted upon it. It was a representation upon which the loanee had changed his position, and had paid the amount within the prescribed period according to that relief package. The amount having been accepted by the Bank, and the case of the loanee having admitted to have fallen in the relief/ incentive package of 17-10-2000, the bank cannot resile from that position and cannot be permitted to turn turtle and adopt a new version or to demand or make any other claim from the petitioner contrary to that relief package.
There is no ambiguity. In clause (ii) of circular of 17-10-2000 in which the date of 16-10-2000 was clearly mentioned and it was provided that the defaulter of two or more instalments before that date would be eligible. The latest circular which was brought in the field on 4-12-2000 in fact has deprived the persons, who had acted upon the earlier letter (offer) of the Bank and had got a valuable vested right after they had fulfilled/completed the representation of the Bank. Therefore, the circular letter dated 4-12-2000, referred to above which has got the effect of nullifying the earlier contract made between the parties cannot be permitted to apply on those loanees whose case was held to fall within the circular of 17-10-2000 and was acted upon. In such case, the Bank cannot be allowed to demand/claim any more amount from the petitioner. Therefore, the claim for more amount of the respondent-Bank to the above mentioned loan account is declared illegal, unlawful and the respondent-Bank is directed to close the account of the petitioner by redeeming the mortgage of the lands of the petitioner in consequence.