1. We have heard this petition along with Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-779, D-807, D-997, D-998, D- 999, D-1131, D-1137, D-1180, D-1203, D-1232, D-1206, D-1207, D-1208, D-1215 and D-1667 of 2008 as identical question of law and facts is involved.
2. ' The petitioner in Const. Petition No,D-735 of 2008 alleged that he availed financial facility to develop his business from respondents Nos.4 to 12. Admittedly the petitioner committed default in payment of outstanding dues. The petitioner filed insolvency Petition No, Nil of 2008, which is pending adjudication and vide order dated 31-3-2008, the petitioner was directed to file list of the creditors. This petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the respondents' officers are visiting residence of the petitioner and creating harassment for the petitioner and his family members and sought direction that respondents Nos.4 to 12 be directed to deal with the petitioner according to civil law of the land and not to create harassment.
3. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-779 of 2008, the petitioner was granted financial facility by respondents Nos.1 to 5. Admittedly the petitioner failed to adjust his liabilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that so far as respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, the matter has been settled amicably between the petitioner and the said respondents outside the Court, whereas negotiations for settlement are going on between the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 4. The petitioner also alleged harassment by the respondents' officials.
4. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-997 of 2008, respondent No,1 granted financial facility to the petitioner, but due to some unavoidable circumstances and other family crisis, the petitioner could not honour his liability and admittedly has committed default in payment of the dues of respondent No,
1. The petitioner complained against the official/recovery officer of respondent No,1 for aggressive and unwarranted actions including harassment.
5. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-998 of 2008, the petitioner was granted financial facility by respondent No,
1. Admittedly the petitioner is a defaulter and failed to adjust his liabilities due to some unavoidable circumstances and other family crisis. The petitioner also alleged harassment by the respondent's officials/ recovery officers.
6. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-999 of 2008, the petitioner was granted financial facility against credit card by respondent No,
1. The petitioner admittedly is a defaulter and failed to adjust his liabilities due to some unavoidable circumstances and other family crisis. The petitioner also alleged harassm ent, misbehavior and insulting treatment against the respondent's official/recovery officer.
7. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-1131 of 2008, financial/ credit facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 7, which facility the petitioner admittedly availed, but he failed to adjust his liabilities in time and present petition has been filed to restrain respondents Nos.1 to 7 to visit the house of the petitioner to harass and abuse the petitioner and his family.
8. ' In Const. Petition No,D-1137 of 2008, respondent No,1 had sanctioned to the petitioner a lease/finance facility for purchase of machinery in August, 2004, for the sum of Rs,9,500,000 for the period of three years, out of which petitioner immediately paid 20% security deposit and also paid 29 monthly instalments/rentals out of 36 instalment/rentals. Admittedly, the petitioner due to normal business downturns defaulted in payment of monthly instalments/rentals to respondent No,1, whereupon respondent No,1 resorted to file recovery Suit No,20 of 2007 before the Banking Court No,1, Karachi, which is pending adjudication. Upon dishonoring a cheque respondent No,1 also filed Criminal Complaint No,173 of 2007 against one of the directors of the petitioner, under section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 before the Banking Court No,1, Karachi, who was subsequently granted bail upon furnishing surety. The petitioner alleged that the act and action taken by respondents Nos.1 to 3 are totally contrary to the law, inhuman, injustice against the norms of law and human rights.
9. ' In Constitutional Petitioner No,D-1180 of 2008, financial/credit cards facilities were granted by respondents Nos.5 to 10, which facilities the petitioner admittedly availed. However, the petitioner alleged that due to exorbitant rate of interest claimed by respondent No,8 (NIB Bank Ltd.) over different facilities, he refused to repay and when the petitioner inquired about the rate of interest, no satisfactory reply was given by any of the departments of the respondents-Banks. The petitioner alleged that the action of the respondents is against the law of the land, illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority. The petitioner prayed to restrain the recovery officers of the respondents-Banks to visit the shop/house of the petitioner and harass the petitioner.
10. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-1203 of 2008, financial/loan facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 and 2, which facility the petitioner admittedly availed. The petitioner contended that he was running Khizra Canteen, which was illegally and unlawfully demolished by P.W.D and Government of Sindh, where after the business of the petitioner was completely destroyed. The petitioner then filed Civil Suit No,706 of 2007, which is pending adjudication before 1st Sr. Civil Judge, Karachi- South. The petitioner contended that due to sudden collapse of his business activities he failed to adjust his liabilities in time and present petition has been filed to restrain the respondents to visit the house of the petitioner, harass and abuse the petitioner and his family.
11. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-1206 of 2008, financial facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 3 and on failure to pay the amount the present petition has been filed alleging that the respondents' officers are visiting residence of the petitioner and restrain respondents Nos.1 to 3 not to visit and harass/abuse the petitioner and his family members.
12. ' In Constitutional Petition No,1207 of 2008, financial facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 4, which facility the petitioner admittedly availed, but failed to adjust his liabilities in time and present petition has been filed to restrain the respondents to visit the house of the petitioner to harass and abuse the petitioner and his family.
13. ' In Constitutional Petition No, D-1208 of 2008, financial facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 6, against which huge amount is outstanding, which petitioner, despite demand of the respondents, failed to pay and the petition has been filed to restrain the respondents to visit the house of the petitioner or to harass the petitioner.
14. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-1215 of 2008, financial facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 5, against which the petitioner was liable to pay to respondents Nos.1 to 5 in instatements and on failure to pay the installments, it appears that respondents' officers are visiting residence of the petitioner and demanding outstanding dues. A complaint was also lodged by the petitioner at Soldier Bazaar Police Station, Karachi on 5-6-2008. Now the petitioner seeks a direction to S.H.O. Of Soldier Bazaar Police Station and S.H.O. Of Saddar Police Station not to provide shelter/support and cover to the staff of the respondents-banks in respect of their illegal acts, viz. Demand of outstanding loan.
15. ' In Constitutional Petition No,D-1232 of 2008, financial facility was granted by respondents Nos.1 to 2 to the petitioner, who was running a beauty parlor and on failure to pay the amount due to uncertain political situation of the country for the last one year and due to extraordinary and upset situation of the city the business of the petitioner gradually decreased and upset. The present petition has been filed alleging that the respondents' officers are visiting residence of the petitioner and restrain respondents Nos.1 and 2 not to visit and harass/abuse the petitioner and her family members.
16. ' Constitutional Petition No,D-1667 of 2008 was filed against respondents Nos.3 to 12, the financial institutions. The respondents-banks granted credit card facility, which was used and utilized by the petitioner and now the petition has been filed by the petitioner that the respondents may be restrained not to force the petitioner to make payment without first settling the account.
17. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, gone through the memos. Of petitions and taken into consideration respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
18. Admittedly financial facilities were granted by the respondents-banks, which facilities were used and utilized by all the petitioners and further admittedly huge amounts are outstanding against the petitioners, which amounts despite lapse of time petitioners failed to adjust. The writ jurisdiction is an equitable remedy provided in aid of justice and not in aid of injustice. The petitioners, who are admittedly defaulters, cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid their outstanding liabilities.
19. ' From the memos. Of petitions it appears that admittedly the petitioners availed loan facilities from the respondents from time to time on the basis of their businesses and sources of income, which amounts the petitioners used to pay in instalment from time to time to the said respondents. The petitioners alleged that due to collapse business and other financial constraints, the default has occurred. It is further alleged that the respondents are now sending their employees, agents at the residence of the petitioners who are harassing the petitioners and their family members.
20. Admittedly, the petitioners are defaulters and have failed to pay the dues of various kinds of facilities/loans provided by the respondents to the petitioners, now by listed petition the petitioners are attempting to avoid their liabilities. If there is any dispute in respect of charging of mark-up or interest over and above the agreement entered between the parties, the petitioners' remedy lies before the Banking Court and or if there is any malpractice or any violation of banking laws, rules, regulations or guidelines or perverse, arbitrary or discriminatory actions by the respondents- Banks/financial institutions, the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner before the Banking Mohtasib appointed under section 82 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, who had jurisdiction to look into the complaint of aggrieved person and Constitutional Petition is not an efficacious remedy.
21. ' The litigation in Court is not only time consuming, but also has adverse effect on business environment. The use of Alternate Dispute Resolution has grown up tremendously in the last few years. In many countries of the world use as a vital tool to preserve business relationships and to provide a speedy, cost effective alternative to litigations. Alternate Dispute Resolution has now become an internationally accepted method of disputes resolution. Government of Pakistan has also introduced Alternate Dispute Resolution in Customs, Sales Tax and Income Tax Acts. Section 89-A has also been added in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by Ordinance ( V of 2002).
22. ' It is thus advised that State Bank of Pakistan to issue instructions to all Commercial Banks that before approaching the Court, an attempt for resolving dispute through mediation/ reconciliation may be made instead of adopting malpractice of sending employee or others, extending threats to customers for recovery of their disputed or undisputed dues.
23. Equitable relief, in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be granted in aid of injustice. The petitioners are admittedly defaulters and are not entitled to equitable relief.
24. ' However, it has been noted that the complaints of maladministration against the financial institutions are increasing day by day and Banks are expected to act strictly in accordance with law for the recovery of their alleged dues.
25. ' After hearing the petitions, Mr. Iqbal Haider, learned counsel for State Bank of Pakistan, informed that taking note of complaints from various customers and after discussion with financial institutions, State Bank of Pakistan has framed a policy, which all Banks have to follow, to recover dues from their customers. We are not going through the said policy and will discuss the same in some appropriate, matter.
26. ' In view of the dismissed of the petitions, the listed applications, if any, have become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed.