' The petitioner, Muhammad Khan Malik, who owns sufficient landed property in Sheikhupura Tehsil, applied in July, 1971 to the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan at Sheikhupura for the supply of a Ford Tractor. In April, 1973 he was informed by Messrs Awami Autos Limited Lahore, respondent No, 3, that against his loan case No, 3753, allocation for supply of one tractor with accessories had since been received from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner was also intimated by the Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Sheikhupura, through letter dated 23rd April, 1973 that a Ford tractor was allocated to him price whereof including the tiller was determined as Rs, 35,779. The petitioner subsequently also received a supply order. The petitioner, in the meantime, completed the formalities and also deposited a sum of Rs, 30,737 in fixed deposit with the Agricultural Development Bank, Sheikhupura. After completion of the formalities, the petitioner approached respondent No, 3 for supply of tractor but the same (supply) was delayed on one pretext or the other. The petitioner approached the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan time and again and ultimately the Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Sheikhupura, intimated the petitioner through letter dated 10th June, 1975 that the loan sanctioned for the purchase of the tractor had been cancelled as the petitioner had already taken delivery of a tractor and that he could withdraw the security tendered in the form of fixed deposit.
3. This action of the bank whereby the sanction of the loan in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled through letter dated 10th June, 1975 has been impugned through the present Constitutional Petition. It is mainly alleged that after the sanction of loan and allocation of tractor, a vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner which could not be taken away arbitrarily by the respondents who were statutory Corporations.
4. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was no provision in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961 (Ordinance IV of 1961) enabling the bank or its functionaries to cancel a loan which was once sanctioned. It is urged that the bank could only order re-payment of loan in lump sum under section 24 of the Ordinance, in certain eventualities. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even under the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the respondent-Bank could not recall the order of sanction of loan in favour of the petitioner because the right created in favour of the petitioner about the sanction of loan and allocation of tractor was acted upon inasmuch as the petitioner completed all the formalities which he was required to do and had also deposited a sum of Rs, 30,737 in fixed deposit account with the respondent-Bank. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on Pakistan v.
Muhammad Hamayatullah Farukhi wherein it has been held that power of receding is available to Government or relevant authorities till a decisive step is taken. In the circumstances of the under consideration case, it is urged that a decisive step was taken inasmuch as the petitioner was intimated of the sanction of loan and allocation of tractor and that he also deposited the requisite amount with the respondent-Bank in fixed deposit and signed all the relevant documents. There can be no dispute about the principle laid down in the aforementioned judicial precedent that power of receding is available only till a decisive step is taken. I may also be observed that in the circumstances of this case, the decisive step had already been taken because the petitioner was intimated of the sanction of loan and allocation of tractor and he also has fulfilled the conditions which he was required to do so as he deposited the requisite amount in the fixed deposit with the respondent-Bank and also executed the necessary documents.
5. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner applied for loan in July, 1971 and the respondent- Bank initiated his loan case bearing No, 3753. Against this loan, he was entitled to get one Ford tractor. It has been alleged by the respondents that the petitioner, before the sanction of the loan as a special case pursuant to verbal recommendations of the employees of the bank made to Messrs Ali Automobiles Limited, the predecessor of Messrs Awami Autos (respondent No, 3), obtained delivery of a Ford tractor on 16th October, 1971. It transpires from the contents of delivery slip No, 747 dated 16th October, 1971 (R-2) annexed by respondent No, 3 with their written statement that the petitioner took delivery of one Ford tractor alongwith one cultivator bearing engine No, and chassis No, as detailed in this delivery slip from Messrs Ali Automobiles Limited on 16th October, 1971 and it has been specifically noted in the delivery slip that the bill would be prepared on receipt of allocation from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, loan case No, 3753 dated 28th July, 1971. This delivery slip bears the signatures of the petitioner. Through letter (R-1) dated 3rd September, 1973, Messrs Awami Autos Limited intimated the Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Shcikhupura, that their loanee Muhammad Khan Malik requested them to deliver him a tractor and cultivator to be adjusted against the allocation of his loan case No, 3753 with a personal recommendation from Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. Messrs Awami Autos Ltd. Considering the good relations they had with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan acceded to the request and delivered one Ford 4000 tractor alongwith C-79 cultivator on 16th October, 1971 in anticipation of supply order vide delivery slip No, 747. It is noteworthy that delivery of one Ford 4000 tractor alongwith a cultivator to the petitioner by Messrs Awami Autos Limited is not denied by the petitioner. It is, however, contended that the said tractor had nothing to do with the loan which was subsequently sanctioned and has been ultimately cancelled through the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, not been able to explain as to how the petitioner could obtain a tractor without sanction of loan or without allocation of tractor by Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan because in Pakistan there was no commercial quota1 and no body can purchase a tractor from the open market without allocation by the Agricultural Development of Pakistan. Moreover, no explanation is forthcoming about the contents of delivery slip No, 747 whereby reference is made to loan case No, 3753 which was sanctioned subsequently in favour of the petitioner and was ultimately cancelled through the impugned order. Thus on merits it is established that the petitioner before the sanction of loan in his favour through loan case No, 3753 and before the formal allocation of tractor in his favour, managed to obtain a tractor from Messrs Ali Automobiles Limited, the predecessor of Messrs Awami Autos Limited, a few months after the filing of his appli B cation for loan and allocation of tractor with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. In the circ umstances, the right which was created in favour of the petitioner through sanction of loan an allocation of tractor in his favour had already been availed of by him in October, 1971 by obtaining the delivery of a Ford 4000 tractor alongwith cultivator from respondent No,
3. There is thus no infringement of any right of the petitioner. It is further observed that after obtaining the delivery of tractor in anticipation of sanction of loan in his favour and allocation of tractor, the petitioner has no right to claim another tractor on the basis of the said loan. He has thus not come to the Court with clean hands and in the circumstances is not entitled to any writ which certainly is a discretionary C relief. In his writ petition, he suppressed the fact that he had already received delivery of a Ford tractor from Messrs Ali Automobiles Limited in October, 1971.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the present Constitutional Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. PLD 1969 SC 407