1. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4348 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 19-3-2001. Respondent No. 1 was directed to decide the representation/appeal of petitioner till 12-4-2001. The petitioner submitted an application before respondent No. 1 on 28-2-2001 who did not decide the same and the petitioner being constrained by the aforesaid circumstances to file this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had secured the loan from the respondents and repaid the same to the respondents but the respondents demanded the amount over and above to the amount due from the petitioner, that petitioner had repaid the amount but the respondents failed to readjust the same. The agreement was signed between the parties to repay the amount within seven years but the respondents demanded to re-pay the amount within three years, therefore, action of respondents is without lawful authority.
3. The learned A.A.G. Under instructions submits that petitioner's application was decided by respondent No. 1 on 24-3-2001. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 1 on 28-3-2001 which was also decided by him on 2-4-2001. The petitioner secured a loan from the respondents by using political influence as is evident from order dated 24-3-2001.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that petitioner and respondents executed agreement of their own sweet-will. The petitioner wants enforcement of contract through this Constitutional petition which is not permissble in the eyes of law as the law laid down in Mumtaz Masood's case (1994 SCM R 2287). It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as the law laid down in Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 SC 246). The petitioner has alternate remedy to file suit against the petitioner before the competent Court under section 9 of Banking Recoveries of Loans Advances, Credits and Advances Act, 1997. In this view of the matter writ petition is not maintainable, however, in the interest of justice and fair-play, respondent No. 1 is directed to provide copy of statement of accounts to the petitioner within one week from today. The C petitioner is directed to appear before him in his office on 25-5-2001. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of petitioner under the incentive scheme in case the case of petitioner falls within the parameter of said scheme, then respondent No. 1 is directed to give benefit of said scheme to the petitioner and also consider the request of petitioner to discharge his liabilities in easy instalments in the interest of Bank and to save he petitioner's family from destruction. The needful be done till 10-6-2001. Respondents No. 1 is further directed to submit report to D.R. (J) of this Court within the stipulated period.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.