1. ' In this petition under Article 199 of the Const ti ion of Pakistan the petitioner prayed as under:-- "(a) To hold that without proper enquiry and consideration of facts insertion of name of petitioner in the list of the defaulters by respondent No,3, on the basis of the information given by respondent No,4 is illegal, unwarranted, bad before the eye of law, ab initio void and of no legal effect and liable to be corrected/deleted to the extent of petitioner's name from the list of defaulters.
(b) To direct respondent No,3 to delete the name of petitioner from the list of defaulters maintained in its office on the basis of information given by respondent No,3 by suppressing correct position/circum stances/ facts and after deletion the same act accordingly for the purpose of information to financial institution/bank if required information from the petitioner according to law.
(c) To direct respondent No,4 to submit/place correct information and facts to respondents Nos.2 and 3 regarding business with the petitioner and availability of decree in favour of petitioner against respondent No,4 and also inform respondent No,3 about suspension/not holding field the in favour of respondent No,4 in Suit No,300 of 1992 for the purpose of reaching legal and appropriate conclusion by respondents Nos.2 and 3.
(d) Or may pass order/orders in favour of the petitioner Honer against the respondents which may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case."
2. ' Respondent No,4 has filed counter-affidavit through their attorney namely Saleem.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the pai ti and examined the petition and annexures thereto.
4. ' Mr. Iqbal mainly contended that both the petitioner and the respondent No,4 filed suits against each other for mcoveries of amount. The claim of the petitioner against the ref. Pondent No,4 was for an amount higher than the claimed by the respondent No,4 against the petitioner.
5. ' Mr. Iqbal submitted that the respondent No,4, on the basis of decree passed in their favour in Suit No, 300 of 1992, dated 12-6-1999, intimated under clause (5) of BCD Circular No,6 of 1990 about the liabilities accruing to the respondent No,4 against the petitioner. He submitted that while intimating the liability of the petitioner, the respondent No,4 was obliged to intimate to the respondent No,3 as to their liability against the claim of the petitioner as well. He added that in consequence of such one sided intimation to the respondent No,3, the entire banking machinery working under the respondent No,2 stopped facilitating the petitioners resulting serious damage to the petitioner's business. According to him this act is in violation of the fundamental rights and the circular.
6. ' In reply Mr. A.R. Akhtar the relevant clause (5) of the circular which is reproduced hereunder:- ' Clause (5): Now, therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred upon the State Bank under section 25(A) read with section 3(A), of the Banking Companies Ordinance, you are directed to furnish the State Bank with data and information, as per Forms CIB-II annexed herewith. The first of the statements shall be as of 31-12-1989. The statements shall be regularly submitted to the Director, Banking Control Department, State Bank of Pakistan, Central Directorate, Karachi on calendar quarterly basis and must positively reach the State Bank within 15 days of the close of the quarter concerned. Since the statements as of 31-12-1989 are the first of their kind, involving collection of permanent data more than the normal time may be consumed in their compilation. The banks/NBFIs are, therefore, allowed to complete them in a period of one month from the date of receipt of this circular."
7. ' Mr. Akhtar submitted that the respondent No,4 has complied with the directions prescribed in the circular. According to him the circular only required the Banking institutions to intimate the details of borrowings, dues and similar financial data as descriptive information about their customers whose over all liabilities to a Bank or non-Bank financial institution accede a certain minimum of amount which shall be prescribed by the State Bank from time to time. He added that such a data is to be up-dated every quarter. He further added that the circular does not provide for intimating the liabilities of the Bank vis-a-vis the borrowers.
8. ' Mr. Akhtar argued that sub-clause (2) of the circular provides that the Banks and NBFIs are free to obtain credit information of the borrowers from the respondent No,3 on payment of fee. He further submitted that it is for the other Banks to obtain information from the respondent No,3 for its utility while dealing with their customers and then they may make their own decisions.
9. ' Mr. Akhtar submitted that the respondent No,4 has not violated any provision of law and therefore, the question of violation of fundamental right does not arise.
10. We have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel and examined the Circular No,6. A perusal of the earlier clauses of this circular reveals that the respondent No,4 developed a mechanism for collecting information through the respondent No,3, from all the banks/NBFIs pertaining to their customers and their financial status available with them. The purpose seems to be that from one source e. The respondent No,3 any financial institution may in its turn collect information about the financial status of a customer/their customer with other banks enabling them to decide the course of their business transactions with them. This mechanism saves the financial institutions falling prey to the defaulters. The exercise is only aimed at to conduct transparent, business and to provide the financial institutions who are holding the depositors' funds, "to look before they leap" with regard to financial commitment. The practice is stated to be in existence in a number of countries.
11. ' We agree with Mr. Akhtar that the circular only requires the financial institutions to intimate to the respondent No,3 about default and liabilities of the borrowers vis-a-vis bank and not vice versa. It cannot, therefore, be said that while respondent No,4 informing about the financial status of the petitioner to the respondent No,3 has violated any provisions thereof.
12. ' The petition being misconceived is therefore, dismissed along with listed application with no order as to costs Petition di nissed.