' AJMAL MIAN, J.-- The Petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) The petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the decision of the respondents as communicated to the petitioner by State Bank's letter ECD/BCS/7551/68M/73, dated 20th December, 1973 (Annexure '0') is without lawful authority and that the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation for the bonus voucher surrendered in respect of Import Licence No. 066655, dated 2-12-1971 in accordance with the rate prescribed by law. An order directing the respondents their servants, agents and assigns and all those claiming through or under them to pay to the petitioners the said compensation.
(ii) The petitioners further submit that since they have so far been deprived of the legitimate compensation for reasons which are extraneous to law this Hon'ble Court may please direct the respondents to also pay to the petitioners interest on their entitlement at the rate of 10% per annum, with effect from 4th July, 1972 until full payment. The cost of the petition is also prayed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that prior to the fall of Dacca in December, 1971 petitioner was carrying on business in erstwhile East and West Pakistan and now in Pakistan and the course of said business they surrendered bonus voucher equivalent of the value of Rs. 27,000 and obtained an import licence bearing No. 066655 for the import of spices. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of escalation of trouble in East Pakistan and declaration of the war they could not avail of the benefit of the said import licence. On 14th May, 1972 the President of Pakistan promulgated an Ordinance called "the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972" hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, whereby the bonus voucher scheme was abolished and under section 6 applications for compensation in respect of outstanding bonus vouchers or claims to bonus vouchers were required to be submitted to the State Bank within a period of 30 days from the commencement of the Ordinance or within such further period as the State Bank was to provide. In pursuance of the above Ordinance respondent No. 2 issued circular No. 49, dated 15th May, 1972 providing the procedure for availing of the compensation in terms of above section 6. It may be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow sub-clause (iii) of para. 3(b) of the above circular which reads as follows:- "Import licences or authorisations issued on cash-cum-bonus or bonus or basis by C.C.I.'E against which Letters of Credit have not been established or forward exchange has not been booked upto the close of business on the 11th May, 1972. In such cases applications for. payment of compensation should be submitted in Form 'D' duly supported by the Exchange Control and Customs copies of the relative Import Licence/Sub authorisation."
' The petitioner by their letter, dated 23rd May, 1972 addressed to respondent No. 2 lodged the claim in respect of above import licence which was not utilized and also forwarded a photostat custom copy of the import licence issued to the petitioner. It seems that there was some correspondence between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the subject but eventually respondent No. 2 by a letter, dated 30th September, 1972 asked the petitioner to submit an application on Form 'D' through their bankers. The petitioner accordingly submitted their application on Form 'D' but respondent No. 2 by their letter, dated 5-2-1973 addressed to M/s. Habib Bank Ltd., Head Office respondent No. 2 declined the above application for the reason reproduced by M/s. Habib Bank in their letter, dated 10th February, 1973 addressed to the petitioner (Annexure 'F' to the petition) which reads as follows:- "As no letter of credit was established against the Import Licence as per your certificate on Form 'D' the case is not eligible for payment of compensation under the existing rules."
' The petitioner through their letter, dated 22nd February, 1973 addressed to the Director, Exchange Control Department of the State Bank of Pakistan pointed out that the aforesaid reason on which the petitioner application was declined was not sustainable in view of the above circular No. 49 as the case was covered by the above circular. It also seems that the petitioner produced certificates from M/s. Habib Bank Ltd., Head Office, dated 9th July, 1973 and of Agrani Bank Asadganj Branch Chittagong the successors of M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. in Bangladesh, dated 9th July, 1973, certifying that the above import licence was not factually utilized but in spite of that respondent No. 2 by his letter, dated 20th December, 1973 declined the petitioner's application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
3. In support of the above petition, it has been vehemently urged by Mr. Muhammad Ali Saeed learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner were entitled to the compensation in terms of clause (iii) of para. 3(b) of circular No. 49 quoted hereinabove in para. 2 but on one pretext or the other respondent No. 2 evaded the payment of the same.
' On the other hand Mr. Nasrullah Awan learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that since the petitioner had failed to produce the statistical copy of the import licence in question respondent No. 2 has rightly declined the petitioner's application.
' Mr. Sher Ali learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 i.e. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, has not supported the stand taken by Mr. Nasrullah Awan but submitted that the amount of interest claimed by the petitioner should not be granted.
4. It is an admitted position that statistical copy of the import licence is not issued to an importer but is retained by the Chief Controller of Import and Export. An importer is issued only the custom copy for the purpose of enabling him to clear the goods after its import, whereas exchange control copy is retained by the Bank through which Letter of Credit is to be opened. In our view, respondent No. 2 was not justified in asking for the production of statistical copy, which was admittedly not issued to the petitioner and over which the petitioner had no control. If there was any doubt, respondent No. 2 could have made official reference to the Chief Controller of Import and Export on the subject. The petitioner had produced the custom copy which was issued to them. The factum that the above import licence was not utilized has not been denied before us. The petitioner in the petition have averred on oath that facually the above import licence was not utilized on account of the instable situation prevalent in the then East Pakistan. We are inclined to hold that the petitioner had produced sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim in terms of clause (iii) of para. 3(b) of above circular No. 49 namely the custom import copy and the above two certificates issued by the two relevant banks and therefore the refusal of respondent No. 2 to make a payment of the compensation on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished statistical copy of the licence is not sustainable. We therefore allow this petition and direct respondent No. 2 to pay compensation for the above import licence to the petitioner within a period of two months from today failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at 10% from today till payment. However there will be no order as to costs.