1. ' BINYAMIN, J.---Petitioner, Mst. Anwar Begum has filed this Constitutional petition against Zarai Taraqiati Bank of Pakistan and four others.
2. 'Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Constitutional Petition (hereinafter referred to as petition) are that respondent No,1, is a Banking company engaged in providing provision for developing better agricultural in the country. In this regard it is providing loan facilities to the farmer for purchase of tractors, seeds, fertilizer etc.
2. That in the year 1995 petitioners applied to the respondent No,1 (hereinafter referred to the Bank) for tractor loan. The application of the petitioner was processed and loan amount of Rs,3,54,420 was sanctioned in her favour. The loan amount was to be repaid in 20 half yearly instalments, starting w,e,f, 7-7-1996. Each instalment was of Rs,32,076 such agreement was executed in between the parties, which is in possession of the Bank. That petitioner paid regularly the instalments and in this regard she paid Rs,4,85,330 upto 7-1-2004.
3. That Federal Government through respondent No,3, published agricultural package, (hereinafter referred to as the package) announced by the President through Ministry of Agricultural and Livestock, Government of Pakistan, for repayment of the Bank's loan. Under the package, the powers of arrest and detention, were withdrawn. That previously respondent No,1 was charging interest on its loans given to the farmers at the rate of 14% per year, but subsequently the rates of interest was reduced to 9% per year and in case of regular and in-time payment it was further reduced to 8% per annum. Besides other relief/ incentives, it was also provided that received loan upto 31st December, 2000 which were payable upto 30-4-2004 upto Rs,5 Lac, such payment of which shall be deemed paid up, if the 50% of entire amount or principal amount whichever is above will be paid to ZTBL. That in pursuance of the package announced petitioner submitted application on 17-11-2004, with the request that the relief announced regarding payment of 50% of entire loan amount or principal amount whichever is more payable upto 30-4-2004, may be extended to her as she has already paid an amount of Rs,4,85,330 upto 7-1-2004 i.e, the principal amount as well as Rs,1,06,315 towards the interest to the Bank.
4. However, respondents Nos.1 and 2, refused to extend, the relief under the package to the, petitioner, on the ground that as she is regular in payment of the loan instalments, and the package is only for the defaulter in payment of the loan amount, therefore, her case does not fall within the purview of the said package, therefore, the relief under the package cannot be extended to her. She was further advised that being a good customer, she should continue to deposit the future installments in time.
3. ' Feeling aggrieved with the refusal of the respondent No,1, petitioner filed instant Constitutional Petition, inter alia; on the ground that as loan amount was granted to her in the year 1995 i.e, prior to December, 2000 which was less than Rs,00.5 million, therefore, her case falls within the purview of the package, and that denial on the part of respondent No,1 to extend her the relief, amounts to discrimination, and also violative of her right of equal treatment guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. She amongst other requested for following reliefs:- -
(i) Declaration that the case of the petitioner comes within time and the petitioner can take the benefit of Agriculture Relief package advertised on 21-8-2004.
(ii) Declaration that respondents No,1 and 2 are not authorized to resile from relief. Inactive package offered by the Government the demand/ claim for any more amount from the petitioner is illegal in the eyes of law.
(iii) Directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to close the account of the petitioner by releasing the mortgage documents of the land of the petitioner in consequence.
(iv) Prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents No,1 and 2, their subordinates or any person/ authority through or under them from any demand of the outstanding amount, if any, against the petitioner till the final decision of this petition.
4. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed para-wise comments to the petitioner. They admitted so far as the availing of tractor loan facility by the petition. They also admitted that petitioner has repaid loan amounting to Rs,485,330 upto 7-1-2004. They further stated that the package was meant for only those, who were defaulter, and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the package, therefore she is not entitled to any relief under the package. That no right of the petitioner is violated by the refusal of relief to the petitioner. That she is not entitled to the relief as prayed and her petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. ' Heard Advocate for parties and perused the case papers.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner availed the facility of tractor loan from respondent No,1 prior to year 2000, and the same was less than Rs,5,00,000 which petitioner was liable to pay in 20 half yearly instalments. That the petitioner was regular in payment of the outstanding amount and has paid due instalments in time. She paid principal amount as well as interest of more than Rs,1,00,000. That as the Government has announced a package of relief for the persons who were defaulter in re-payment of the loan amount during particular period, therefore, the case of the petitioner which pertains to that period also falls within the purview of that scheme, she is entitled to avail the benefit extended under the said scheme/package. That the respondents Nos.1 and 2 by refusing to extend the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioner are treating the petitioner in a discriminatory way otherwise, as the petitioner has been paying instalments in due time, therefore, her case is on better footing and she is entitled to the relief/ package than those who committed default in payment of the same. That by refusing the relief under the package to the petitioner, the respondents have violated her right of equality of citizens provided under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. That Article 25 of the Constitution reads as under:-- "25. Equality of citizens. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children."
7. 'That it is well-settled law that all persons placed in similar circumstances must be treated alike and the reasonable classification must be based on reasonable grounds in a particular set of circumstances, but the same in any case must not offend the spirit of Article 25 of the Constitution.
8. Person equally placed must be treated alike in the matter of privileges and liabilities under the rule of equal protection of law (2001 CLC 385; 2001 CLC 347). He, therefore, requested for grant of this Constitutional Petition and for providing relief to the petitioner as prayed.
9. ' Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was regular in payment of the instalments of the loan amount, whereas, the package announced by the Government is meant for those who have defaulted in payment of loan, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to draw any benefit under the said package. That the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are based on misconception, and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He, therefore, requested for rejection of the petition in limine.
10. ' We have considered the contentions raised at bar and have also perused case papers.
11. The fact that loan amount was extended to petitioner prior to year 2000 and that she repaid the principal amount as well as interest amount of more than Rs,1,00,000, therefore, not treating her case within the purview of the relief package announced by the Government amounts to discrimination. In case, the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 are accepted, then it would amount to penalizing the customers, who are regular in payment of the instalments of the loans and putting the premium on the fault of the defaulter in payment of loan amount. As the attitude of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in this case is discriminatory, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to continue. Furthermore, under Article 25 of the Constitution, it is clearly provided that all citizens shall be treated equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law and no discrimination can be made on un-reasonable grounds. The decided case referred above fully supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of relief package announced by the Government. Therefore, we dispose of the instant Constitutional Petition with a direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to treat the case of the petitioner within the purview of relief package announced on 21-8-2004 by the Government and to extend her the relief provided under the said package within a reasonable time and without unnecessary delay.
12. ' With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.