' The petitioner purchased a ten-rupee prize bond on 16-3-1973' Bearing No. SG431590 which reads as follows:- "Rs. 10 GONERNMENT OF PAKISTAN INTEREST FREE Rs. 10 NATIONAL PRIZE BONDS ' Series SG Ten Rupees SG 431590 ' The holder of this ten-Rupee Bond is entitled to receive on presentation a sum of Rupees Ten free of interest and in addition such prizes as may be won on this bond from time to time in accordance with the rules framed by the Government of Pakistan.
By order of the President of Pakistan SG 431590 (Sd.) Governor, State Bank of Pakistan Rs. 10 Rs.
10."
' The draw for prizes was held on 15-2-1973 in which the above prize bond was declared to have won the prize of Rs. 25,000.
2. The petitioner, it appears, had taken the services of the Habib Bank Ltd. (Karachi) for securing information of successful prize bonds. On 3-3-1976 the Habib Bank sent the following information in the form of Annex. 'B' to the petitioner :- Habib Bank Limited Computer Divisions Habib Bank Plaza Karachi-21 3Rd-MAR-i976 03/0 Regal. No. 19431-20 Miss Razia Shaikh 91-A. I Gulberg III Lahore ' Dear Customer ' We are pleased to inform you that our computer has detected a winner in the list of Prize Bonds registered with us in your name. The prize may be claimed only if the date of issue stamped in the bond precedes the draw date by one month; or six years have not yet elapsed since the draw date.
' If the prize has not already been collected, you will be interested to receive details, which are as follows "-{{URDU TEXT}} Denomi- Bond Draw Draw Date Value of nation Number Number prize 0 SG-431593 61 16-2-1973 Rs, 25,000 ' If the prize is collected by you, we would like to convey to you our sincere congratulations Enclosed herewith are the prescribed forms to be used in claiming the prize from the State Bank of Pakistan.
Your Habib Bank manager will be only too happy to assist and advise you in this matter. As always, it has been a pleasure to have been of service to you. Yours sincerely, (Sd.) Dare F. Mirza. Vice-President and Systems Executive.
' The petitioner applied to the State Bank of Pakistan for payment of the amount of the prize but they refused to pay prize to her. The presentation of the bond by the petitioner and the refusal by the State Bank of Pakistan, it is submitted, were all oral. Thereafter , petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution praying that "a direction be issued to respondents to make the payment to her against Bond No. SG-431590 as intimated to her vide Annexure B in accordance with law".
3. The relevant provisions which regulated the payment of prize bonds are contained in the Prize Bonds Rules, 197 t published in Part I, of the Gazette of Pakistan, dated 26-1-1971upto date copy placed on record as Annex. 'R/I'). Rules 7, 8 and 9 are relevant. They read as follows :- "Rule 7.-Each Bond sold on or before the 14th of the month immediately preceding the month of draw will qualify for a prize in the forthcoming draw and all subsequent draws, provided that it has not been encashed. Rule 8.-All Bonds pertaining to a series from which any bonds have been sold up to and including the 14th of the month immediately preceding the month of draw, will participate in the ensuing draw. Rule 9.-In case an unsold. Bond or a Bond sold after the 14th of the month immediately preceding the month of draw, wins a prize, that prize will not be awarded.
Bonds remaining outstanding for the above said qualifying period for prizes but enchased before tire results of the draw are published in the Gazette of Pakistan will also not qualify for the prize."
If examined in the light of the above rules, it will transpire that the bond in dispute was purchased by the Petitioner on 1c-3.1973 which is the date given in the issue stamp as the date of issue. The drew, however, took place on 15-2-1973. Prom that point of view, the prize bond did not fulfil the condition laid down in rule 7 Mid, and as 'Rich, would not be eligible to get the prize.
4. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the endorsement of the Habib Bunk Ltd. Above reproduced and submitted that no doubt the petitioner did not fulfil the qualification of being within the scheduled "purchasing date". However, his argument was that the bond did fulfil the other alternative condition as reproduced in the endorsement of the Habib Bank namely 2{{URDU TEXT}} ' It has not been shown to me a3 to how and where from the above- noted condition was taken by the Habib Bank. Obviously this condition is not in accord with rule 9 reproduced above, because, in the said rule it is clearly laid down that "in case an unsold bond or a bend sold after the 14th of the month immediately preceding the month of draw, wins a prize, that prize will not be awarded". At this juncture rule 17 may also be taken note of it. It states that "prize money may be claimed by the holder of a prize winning bond at any time within a period of six years from the date of the relevant draw. After the expiry of that period the liability of the Government to pay the prize money shall terminate and no such claim shall be entertainer unless any other period of limitation is fixed by any law for the time being in force". The endorsement of the Habib Bank does not correctly reproduce rule I which refers to only such prize bonds which are eligible for the award of E, the prize and as in the instant case as per rule 9 ibid. The bond in dispute was nor eligible for the award of the prize rule 17 even otherwise could not be attracted.
5. I issued a notice to the principal officer of the Habib Bank Ltd., Bank Square, Lahore, to appear in this case and throw any light on the subject in hand regarding the above-mentioned endorsement. The Habib Bank representative appeared and submitted that they were in no position to lay down any conditions regarding the prize bonds and that the portion of the endorsement which was the subject-matter of the present controversy was not correct and actually was intended to cover only such prize bonds which otherwise qualified for award of a prize and was nor by itself a new qualification for winning a prize. This is a complete answer to any claim which wet being advanced by the petitioner in the instant case on the basis of the aforesaid endorsement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Habib Bank was an agent of the Federation of Pakistan and, therefore, any condition laid down by it would tantamount to be a condition of its principal who should be bound to honour the same and give prize to the petitioner on that basis.
The prize bond as reproeeeced above indicates that prize was to be in accordance with the rules framed by the Government of Pakistan. The relevant rules framed by the Government of Pakistan have been referred to above. The case of the petitioner does not fall within prize winning rules The controversial endorsement of the Habib Bank is neither a rule, nor framed by the Federal Government and even otherwise is not covered by any sanction or authority behind it. There is no relationship of principal and agent vis-a-vis the Federal Government and the Habib Bank in respect of the matter in hand and none has been established on the present record. Actually the Habib Bank representative did not claim any such relationship. The point raised has thus no relevancy when even otherwise, as explained earlier, the condition laid down is against the relevant rules and is of no legal effect and cannot form the basis for claiming any prize. I hold accordingly.
7. The upshot of tie above discussion is that the present writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.