' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---United Bank Limited through its Bank Manager, Branch at Khalabat Township, Haripur, filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondent No,2, Aurangzeb Shaffi Barki and Amin Nawaz, since dead the then General Manager, M/s. Shaffi Woollen Industries Limited, Khalabat Township, Haripur under section 7 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 read with section 379/427, P.P.C. Before the Tribunal established at Aboottabad. United Bank Limited has also filed two money suits against Shaffi Woollen Industries Limited, its Directors and Guarantors befor4 the said Tribunal.
2. During the pendency of all these causes, respondent No,2 filed an application before the Federal Government for the transfer of the complaint and Begum Nafees Bano filed applications for the transfer of the two money suits from the Tribunal at Abbottabad to that at Lahore, but these applications were not accepted and they were informed vide letter, dated 16-2-1995. However, it was on 29-3-1995 when a transfer order of the two suits and criminal complaint was passed and all the three matters were ordered to be transferred from the Banking Tribunal at Abbottabad to Banking Tribunal-I, Lahore. It is this order which has been challenged through the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended; (1) that the authority has got no power of review and that once an order with regard to the rejection of the application was passed then the subsequent impugned order of acceding to the request of the transfer of three cases ought not to have been passed as that amounts to a review and which the law does not contemplate and relied upon "Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi" (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 1);
(ii) that according to section 4(2) of the Ordinance under which the, transfer order can be passed envisages (a) convenience of the parties and (b) interest of justice, but these two prerequisite conditions are not fulfilled rather it caused inconvenience to the petitioners; (iii) that the impugned order was passed on the back of the petitioner as they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order as it is the petitioner who would incur inconvenience by attending the Court at Lahore instead of attending the Court having territorial jurisdiction and would face difficulty in their defence after covering a long distance for attending the Court on each and every date; (iv) it is the Banking Tribunal at Abbottabad which has got the jurisdiction as the branch of .U.B.L. Which has struck the transaction with the borrower is situated at Khalabat Township, the defendants' company is also situated at Khalabat Township, Haripur and the loan was advanced at the branch of U.B.L. Situated at Khalabat Township Haripur, hence it is the Banking Tribunal at Abbottabad which has got the jurisdiction.
4. Similarly in the complaint the offence alleged has taken place in the premises of factory situated at Khalabat Township, Haripur. The petitioners and the witnesses belong to the said area and the complainant i,e, U.B.L. Branch, Khalabat Township is also in the area under the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Abbottabad. Hence in all the matters it is a Tribunal at Abbottabad which has got the jurisdiction to entertain the matters. The general rule is that the Court having territorial jurisdiction to try the case and its (case) transfer is an exception which is resorted to in exceptional circumstances, inter alia, the convenience of parties and ends of justice which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are not available in the present case rather it would cause inconvenience to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents while giving brief history of the case that the money suits which have been filed have already been decided by the Tribunal and now the appeals against them are pending before the Lahore High Court. His another submission was that as the lis, the transfer of the cases, has already been decided and in view of the amendment of the laws through Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and the repeal of the earlier laws, including the one under which transfer order has been passed, it is now past and closed matter and the same now cannot be challenged. Reliance is placed on "D.P. Edulji & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Punjab and others" (1995 M LD 1016). He has also controverted the averments of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the status of the petitioner who was stated by the petitioners' counsel to be apprentice director while according to the respondents they are directors/shareholders and assets of the company have been transferred to them and they are in full control of the management and are in possession. He has further submitted that the impugned order is in the nature of administrative/executive order and not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on "Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Habib Bank Limited" (PLD 1996 Lahore 199), "Aziz ur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 1996 Lahore 238) and D.P. Edulji & Co. v. Government of Punjab" (1995 M LD 1016). He has submitted that the petitioners have got no locus standi as it is a matter relating to the Court and the petitioner will have to attend the Court to which the matter is handed over for adjudication.
6. He contended that prior to the institution of the present writ petition a Writ Petition No,34/95 has already been filed by U.B.L. Challenging the impugned order but later on the same was withdrawn by the bank and the bank in a way has consented to the adjudication of the cases by the Court to which those have been transferred.
7. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Federal Government has got the power and authority under section 4(2) of the Ordinance to transfer the case from one Tribunal to another for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice. Here in this case, it has already been noted, that the petitioners instead of having a convenience due to the transfer of the case to the Tribunal at Lahore would suffer and particularly to defend the case being accused-respondent in a complaint case and it is also the demand of justice that the matter be adjudicated by a Court having territorial jurisdiction and it would also be in the interest of justice. "Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd.'s "case and "Aziz ur Rehman's" cases are quite distinguishable as in those cases due to the pendency of large number of cases and the establishment of new Tribunal the cases were transferred to the new Tribunal and that was for the convenience of the parties and for the quick dispensation of justice by distributing the cases amongst the various Tribunals. Moreover, the point involved in those cases was that whether the powers of transfer can be delegated to a Tribunal which is not the case here in the present writ petition.
8. The convenience of the parties and the ends of justice as envisaged by the law apart, once the order has been passed by the authority not acceding to the request of the applicant for the transfer of the case then after some days without any development the, same cannot be reviewed and in this respect reliance was placed on "Hussain Bakhsh's" case, referred to above, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the review powers have been given by the statute itself the same cannot be assumed and exercised by an authority.
9. The authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents on the point of past and closed matters and also that the administrative orders cannot be challenged are also distinguishable as in the cited case writ petition has already been decided and the subsequent writ petition in respect of the same subject-matter was held not to be entertain able. Moreover, the authority to grant license was under challenge which administrative order is quite distinguishable from the one in hand.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the disposal of the lis is also not maintainable as the operation of the impugned order has been suspended by this Court and moreover, the main lies i,e, the pendency of the criminal complaint is still pending and it was only an ancillary matter as to where it be tried and that would have no effect on the main case.
11. As a sequel to our above discussion we accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned order and it is directed that the complaint be tried by the Court having the territorial jurisdiction i,e, Court at Abbottabad/the Competent Court to try the cases.