SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This writ petition seeks to challenge the vires of Rule 15 of the Prize Bond Rules, 1999.
2. The petitioner is the holder of prize bond No.D-433992 having face value of Rs.1500/-. The said prize bond was listed in the draw held by the State Bank of Pakistan on 15.08.2003 carrying prize money of Rs.1,000,000/-. The petitioner after becoming aware of the aforementioned fact applied for the prize money on 23.08.2014 when his request was turned down being time barred in terms of Rule 15 of the Prize Bond Rules, 1999, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 15 was ultra vires to provisions of Public Debt Act, 1944 (the Act) which did not prescribe any limitation period for collecting the prize money on a prize bond. In this regard, reference was made to sections 23 and 24 of the Act to state that the said provisions did not provide any period of limitation for discharge of the liability of the Government.
4. Learned counsel for the State Bank of Pakistan as well as learned Deputy Attorney General opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for State Bank of Pakistan relied upon a judgment reported as Director General National Savings Islamabad v. Balqees Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 174) to submit that the government was legally justified in rejecting a time barred claim of the holder Of prize bond. Learned Deputy Attorney General while making reference to section 2(2)(a)(iv) read with section 28 of the Act contended that Rule 15 was validly framed.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Rule 15 provides a gap of six years within which the holder of a prize bond shall claim prize money from the date of relative draw and further stipulates that the liability of the Government to pay the prize money shall stand terminated after the expiry of the said period.
7. The petitioner's counsel relied on section 23 of the Act which by its terms stipulates that the Government shall stand discharged from all liability on a bearer bond or any interest coupon after payment to the holder of such bond on or after the date when the amount expressed therein becomes due. This provision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing on the issue involved in this petition in as much as prize bonds are a different specie of bonds than the bearer bonds.
8. The term prize bond has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(2)(a) defines Government Security to include any stock transferable by registration in the books of the bank or a promissory note payable to order or a bearer bond payable to bearer or a form prescribed in this behalf are notified by the Government from time to time.
9. Section 28 empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
Subsection 2(2) of section 28 stipulates that the rules may provide, inter alia, for the form of obligations referred to in clause (iv) of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of section 2.
10. In terms of section 28 of the Act, the Government framed the Prize Bond Rules, 1999. The said rules define prize bond to mean "....a Federal Government security issued in a form in exercise of the Powers conferred by sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Public Debt Act, 1994 (XVIII of 1994)".
11. It is thus clear that prize bonds issued by the. Government come under the purview of sub- clause (iv) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Act. There is also no cavil to the proposition that Government could validly frame rules in respect of the obligations incurred by it on the prize bonds in terms of section 28 of the Act. The assertion that Rule 15 of the Prize Bond Rules, 1999 was contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the Act has no merit in it in view of the clear mandate of law. The liability of the Government to pay the prize money to the petitioner thus stood terminated after the lapse of six years from the date of the draw. The following endorsement on the prize bond again brings into sharp focus the fact that the prize money was subject to the provisions of the Prize Bond. Rules, 1999.
The holder of this bond is entitled to receive on presentation, a sum of Fifteen Hundred Rupees free of interest and in addition, such prizes as may be won on this bond in accordance with rules framed by the Government of Pakistan.
By 23.08.2014 the claim preferred by the petitioner for collection of the prize money had become patently time barred. The Government was, therefore, justified in refusing to award the prize money to the petitioner.
12. This writ petition, being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.