1. BIN YAMIN, J. --- Petitioner, Mst . Anwar Begum has filed this Constituti9on Petition against Zarai Tarqiati Bank of Pakistan and four others.
2. Brief facts to the case as narrated in the Constitution 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 petitioner 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 i.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 Under the package, the power of arrest and detention, were withdrawn.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 rate 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 Z.T.B.L. 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 of 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 instalments in time.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the refusal of the respondent No. 1, petitioner filed instant Constitution 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 Nos.
4. 1 and 2 are not authorized to resile from relief. Incentive package offered by the Government the demand/claim for any more amount from the petitioner is illegal in the eyes of law.
5. (i.e) 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 Nos. 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.
6. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed para-were comments to the petition. They admitted so far as the availing of tractor loan facility by the petitioner. 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 the relief to the petitioner. That she is not entitled to the relief as prayed and her petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard Advocate for parties and perused the case papers.
8. 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 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 repayment of the loan amount during particular period, therefore, the case of the petitioner which pertains to the 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 o extend the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioner are treating the petitioner is 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 then 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 citizen provided under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The 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 the State from making any 'special provision for the protection of women and children."
9. 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.
10. 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 Constitution Petition and for providing relief to the petitioner as prayed.{{BLUR PAGE}} 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 mis-conception, and the petitioner is noti;entitled to any relief. He, therefore, requested for Jam pf the petitioner in limine. be111"W tfave considered the contentions raised at bar and ed case papers. Even -etnebnocac, sloihA Itfrot9SitkVAPan amount was extended to petitioner RiVEgmtieac,,?Ppp*dlhat she repaid the principal amount as well es:10915eg 2tRupt more than Rs.
11. 1,00,000/-, therefore, not treating her case within the purview of the ieti6f OakilY84h-lidtfilded bPifie Government amounts to dig&IrWrig16119.i(Wil it ifild,oiti4litioi'itentions of the learned CoinfefP041fifill* N91.44!4Eiligorp accepted, then it would amount to penalizing the customer, who are regular in giet. oifFitt4rat5Titronntiof6gt7 lor,frir.iAdmepnutttoinfg loan 6utii.Skt t atlegs8f ilWq-gip6ii6Qiiigiqa.11(56i-id 2 in isn8bigtlicidRr81-0A a`fari";`' ifigr,Of6igFliheillarcig'61i not be allowed to continue. Furthermorei,31.14-166-bAFtiefen261 of the eohstitutioacicit providedlhatrall oitizerNsr4Shall be tretitert'equalibeforeftaw and are)entitieszlitmequehiproteotion oflaw:and nocdiscrimitiatiOnizam bechtmigleeenitmet450040e grounds.eTheutecideda:laeeitetetceti4ehoikeluityjsvpPOWAV ocintentiftselrif tthir. Teal-neck-13- count' to or t4bel politioget ThereforRowskirei the considefedLyiewittmbtbaValeiMittiti petitioner. Us re INft !Felts osithiristh ptiNiptirollelief9peOagre atinatoht6d GlOverMerdiTherefore, dispo,507-461# inttdel GenstittitiocOPetitioto bra direCtierbig:tEresperkitoti$ 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 . . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.