' The necessary facts giving rise to the present petition are that in the year 1982 the petitioners'
Cooperative Society obtained a loan of Rs,77,800 from the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited, Sahiwal. Subsequently after making some payments towards repayment of that loan the petitioners became defaulters on 27-12-1983. Consequently a decree was passed against the petitioners by the, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sahiwal and steps were taken to get the outstanding amount recovered from the petitioners. While those steps were still in progress the Prime Minister of Pakistan announced an Agricultural Reform Package for Fanners on 31-12-1991 according to which "no interest/mark-up will be charged on production loans availed before 31-12- 1994 by farmers having land holding up to 12.5 acres provided these are repaid on or before 31-5- 1992". When the respondents persisted with their bid to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioners the petitioners approached this Court through the present Constitutional petition challenging the validity of such an exercise.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire principal amount of the loan had already been paid by the petitioners before the target date i,e, 31-5-1992 and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in requiring the petitioners to pay interest on the said amount as was clear from the Prime Minister's Package mentioned above. As against that the learned counsel for the respondents has maintained that it is true that the total amount paid by the petitioners before the said target date was a little more than the principal amount of loan obtained by the petitioners but out of the said amount a sum of Rs,56,029.99 had been paid towards the principal amount and the remaining amount of Rs,23,517.01 had been paid towards the interest accruing on the principal amount till then. Thus, according to the learned counsel kilt- the respondents the total principal amount of the loan had not been paid by the petitioners till the target date and, therefore, they could not avail of the Package announced by the Prime Minister.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this ease one thing is quite clear that the total amount paid by the petitioners by the target date in fact exceeded the principal amount of loan obtained by the petitioners. I am quite clear in my mind that the spirit of the above-mentioned Package of Reforms announced by the Prime Minister was to give, relief to the farmers by way of waving off the interest/mark-up on the loan obtained by them for their agricultural pursuits. Thus, if the total amount paid by such farmers by the target date exceeded the principal amount of the loan originally obtained by the farmers then it became irrelevant whether the Bank had bifurcated that amount in the principal amount and the interest or had adjusted the said amount in different categories. What was relevant for the purposes of the said Package of Reforms was full repayment of the original amount obtained by the farmers as loan. In this context the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the term "loan" in fact means the principal amount as well as the interest accruing thereon. In the peculiar circumstances of this case and keeping in view -the spirit of the package of Reforms announced by the Prime Minister I am not ready to place such an extensive construction on the term "loan" in the present context. It is settled law that while interpreting a provision of legislation or a policy it is to be interpreted while keeping in view the spirit of such a legislation or policy. To the only, reasonable interpretation of the Package of Reforms mentioned above appears to be to secure recovery of the entire original amount given on loan to a farmer and to absolve him of his obligation to pay interest/mark-up on such a loan.
4. From what has been discussed above it is clear that the petitioners had already paid respondent No,1 more than what was actually obtained by them by way of loan in the first instance. Thus, the demand raised by the respondents from the petitioners based on charging of interest was clearly unjustified and uncalled for on account of its being against the letter as well as the spirit of the abovementioned Package of Reforms announced by the Prime Minister. As the demand raised by the respondents was against the declared policy of the Government, therefore, the same is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This petition is, thus, allowed in the terms mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. Before parting with this. Order it may be observed that the abovementioned Package of Reforms itself contemplated that the loss suffered by the concerned Cooperative Bank on account of remission of interest/mark-up shall be borne/compensated by the Government. Let respondent No,1 claim the requisite compensation from the Government and not harass the poor petitioners in that regard any more.