' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has sought for issuance of direction to respondent No,8/NAB to launch an inquiry into the matter and criminal case/reference may be made against the responsible of huge fraud.
2. Precisely the facts as narrated in this petition are that the petitioner is widow and an old lady. In the year, 2005 she was informed about a scheme introduced by respondent No,7 which promised to pay decent profit on the amount deposited. The petitioner deposited five millions rupees with respondent No,7 and obtained deposit certificates for fixed profit on the said amount. After few months petitioner was shocked when she was told that due to the illegalities and irregularities of respondents Nos.4 and 5, respondent No,7 had suffered huge loss and apprehended about the safe recovery of her money. The petitioner has also been informed that respondent No,3 has taken cognizance of this matter and appointed respondent No,6 to look into the matter and affairs of respondent No,7. Now it has come into the notice of petitioner the reasons for collapse of .Respondent No,7, the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondents Nos.4 and 5, who had committed heinous offence which would have disastrous effects on the innocent depositors.
Respondent No,3- being the regulatory authority took cognizance under sections 282-E and 282-F of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and respondent No,6 has been appointed to inquire into the matter.
Inspite of passage of considerable time nothing substantial has been done so far. Respondent No,6 has not taken any action against the respondents Nos.4 and 5. According to the petitioner respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are enjoying fruit of their illegal gains, whereas the depositors are having sleepless nights and this scam has also once again created uncertainty and created serious doubts about the competency and effectiveness of the regulatory bodies of our country.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Crescent Bank was established in the year 2008 and creditors had availed finance facilities provided by the bank but all the depositors who were having fixed deposits were defrauded; that respondent No,3 in para. No,3 of his reply has categorically stated that petitioner was informed about the merger of CSIBL and IHFL through letter dated 12-4-2007, but no such letter was received by the petitioner; that respondents Nos.4 and 5 remained Chief Executive and Director of the Company and had advanced loans to their own companies without any equitable security and in such circumstances respondent No,8 may be directed to hold an inquiry into the matter against the responsible persons of such huge fraud; that the matter may be referred to the NAB for holding inquiry against respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the public interest and to safeguard the interest of creditors because it is fit case for this purpose; that this fraud committed by respondent No,7 also published in newspapers too that illegalities and irregularities committed by the Management of Crescent Bank should be condemned and responsible delinquents must be penalized in accordance with law so that the rights of general public can be secured.
4. Learned counsel for SECP respondent No,3 has contended that duty of SECP is to regulate the working of banks and on receiving the information about the irregularities committed by the Management, respondent No,3 took notice against the bank and sue it under Companies Ordinance to preserve the interest of the Depositors; that first preference was that bank should continue to work, but it was sold in an open auction/bidding on 23-9-2008 to an International Company which had given undertaking and chalked out the programme to repay the amounts of the depositors; that the respondent No,3 is regularly looking after the affairs of Crescent Bank; that respondent No,3 is fully competent to redress the issue and has already taken the notice regarding involvement of the Management in Real Estate and advance loans under sections 282-E and 282-F of Companies Ordinance to safeguard the interest of the depositors, and that the bank has been sold to a Foreign Company and the rights of the depositors will be secured and their money will be repaid to them.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.4 and 5 has opposed the petition on the ground that respondent No,4 remained Chief Executive of the Bank for nine months, but respondent No,5 was neither share-holder nor he was Director of the bank; that both the respondents were not in a position to take any decision of the bank and no personal loan had been ever taken by both of them; that Writ Petition No,12510 of 2008 has also been filed by the petitioner in which this issue was also raised and NAB filed reply which matter is still under consideration; that the writ petition has been filed to misuse the process of law by petitioner; that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false and without any evidence and that the writ petition may be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No, 9 has contended that respondent No,9 has approached the bank and has chalked out a programme to satisfy the creditors and to pay all their loans out of which the petitioner has already received reasonable amount and remaining amount will be paid to the petitioner as per schedule; that it will be in interest of justice that the bank may be allowed to work smoothly so that creditor attract otherwise any action taken by this Court or any other authority; if has come to the knowledge of General Public it will damage the business of bank by losing the trust of the people.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached with this petition.
8. The petitioner had opened the account and deposited five million rupees, who has already received back a reasonable amount during the proceedings in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has given undertaking that the balance amount of petitioner is secured and will be given to the petitioner as per programme planned by respondent No,9. In such circumstances learned counsel for petitioner feels satisfied and does not press the first prayer for issuance of direction for recovery of amount to the petitioner.
9. As far as second prayer for direction to NAB for holding of any inquiry against respondents Nos.4 and 5 is concerned SECP, which is Regulatory Body of respondent No,7 has already seized of the matter which after holding the inquiry has removed certain, irregularities, and in order to safeguard the interest of the depositors has arranged the sale of bank in open bidding whereupon respondent No,9 has purchased the bank on 26-6-2007 for a consideration of Rs,800 millions which itself has chalked out a programme to satisfy and safeguard the valuable rights of the depositors and the same is in progress. It is not denied that the payments are being made and the management is also helping to remove the irregularities in the bank. It is felt appropriate that the bank should continue to work in order to revive the confidence of general public in the bank. In such circumstances if any direction is issued to respondent No,8/NAB it will not only hamper the progress and A the working of the bank but it will also ruin the business of bank as confidence of general public will be shaken. Even otherwise NAB authorities have no power to deal with the matter of financial institutions and that also cannot be done without permission of State Bank. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and feeling that the business of the bank may have not been spoiled as now respondent No,9 as has-purchased the bank and has invested huge amount for redressal of grievances of the depositors including, the petitioner, I am not inclined to issue any direction to NAB authorities, which so far there is no charge against the subsequent purchaser of the Bank. This Court will not pass the order which can spoil the business of any establishment working in a lawful manner. Hence this petition is dismissed, but however, the petitioner can approach the authorities for the redressal of his grievance. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.