S. A. NUSRAT, J.--The respondent carried on import and export business prior to the fall of Dhaka and had in December, 1971 allegedly surrendered Bonus vouchers equivalent to the value of Rs.27,000 and said to have obtained an import licence from the Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of Pakistan, Chittagong. According to the petitioner such licence issued to him was not utilised due to the troubled condition in the then two wings of Pakistan.
2. The Government of Pakistan on 11-5-1971 issued an Ordinance called the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972 by which the Bonus Vouchers Scheme was abolished and all Bonus Vouchers and claims to Bouns Vouchers were declared void and ineffective. By section 5 of the aforesaid Ordnance provision was made for the payment of compensation at the prescribed rate against "claims to Bonus Vouchers". For the settlement of claims compensation in terms of the Ordinance, a Circular No.49, dated 15-5-1972 was issued by the State Bank of Pakistan which laid down a procedure for the submission of applications. Clause (iii) of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of the said Circular, inter alia, required the production of an Exchange Control Copy of the relative import licence.
3. The petitioner applied for the grant of compensation but his application was rejected by the State Bank. Thereupon a Constitutional Petition was filed by him which was accepted as per impugned judgment and State Bank of Pakistan was directed to pay compensation to the petitioner within two months time and on failure to do so further pay interest at 10$ from the date of the judgment. Reliance was placed by the learned High Court on a letter of the Habib Bank Limited, Chittagong dated 9th July, 1973 certifying that the relevant import licence issued to the respondent had remained unutilised. Apart from challenging the genuineness of this letter, learned Deputy Attorney-General referred to the above provision of the Circular No.49 requiring the production of the Exchange Control Copy of the licence and contended that in the absence of the production of the same, the State Bank was not in law bound to pay any compensation.
4. The above contention needs examination and leave is accordingly granted.