I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law.
Writ Petition No.3660 of 2001, Writ Petition No.3630 of 2001 and Writ Petition No.3528 of 2001.
2. Brief facts out of which the present writ petitions arise are that the petitioners secured a loan from the respective respondents, Agreements were also executed between the parties. According to the terms and conditions of the agreements, petitioners have to repay the loan to the respective respondents in easy installments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners had repaid almost all the principal amount to the respective respondents and the balance amount claimed by the respective respondents is interest which has already been declared by the Superior Courts as un--Islamic. In support of their contention they relied upon the following PLD 1992 FSC 1 (Mehmood-ur-Rehman's case) and PLD 2000 SC 225 (Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case).
They further relied upon admission order in I.C.A. No. 157 of 2000 and also admission orders passed in various writ petitions. They further urged that respondent failed to give benefit/concession to the petitioners under the incentive schemes issued by the respondents off and on. They further urged that respondents failed to provide statement of accounts to the petitioners. They further urged that respondents failed to consider the request of the petitioners to discharge their liabilities in easy installments.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioners and respective respondents executed agreements of their own sweet-will. Petitioners want enforcement of contracts through the Constitutional petitions which is not permissible in the eyes of law. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1994 SCM R 2287 (Mumtaz Masood's case), PLD 1958 SC 267 (Chandpur Mill's case) and PLD 1962 SC 108 (M/s. Momin Motor Companies case.)
As far as the charge of the interest is concerned, this Court in view of Article 203-G of the Constitution has got no authority to determine the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Muhammad Aslam Khaki has held that no doubt interest/Riba is un-Islamic but past and closed transactions are not to be re-opened. It is settled principle of law that admission order or leave granting order is not a judgment as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mirza Adam Khan's case (PLD 1975 SC 9). Petitioners have alternative remedies to file a suit against the respondents under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Therefore writ petitions are not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1966 SC 246). Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that petitioners have already paid more than principal amount to the respondents. Therefore, balance amount claimed by the respective respondents is not borne out from the record of the respondents; and respondents failed to provide copy of the accounts to the petitioners and also failed to give them benefit/concession under the incentive schemes issued by the respective respondents. The respective respondents also failed to accept the request of the petitioners to discharge their liabilities in easy installments. In this view of the matter, petitioners are directed to appear before the Manager of the respective respondents to discharge their liabilities of respective respondents strictly in accordance with law read with the terms of the agreements. The Manager of the respective respondents shall allow them any benefit/concession permissible in such-like cases under the law, rules and notification and also consider their cases under the incentive schemes. In case the case of the petitioners falls within the four corners of the schemes. He is also directed to consider the request of the petitioners to discharge their liabilities in easy instalments. Petitioners shall appear before the Manager of the respective respondents on 17-3-2001 who as already directed would determine the liabilities of the petitioners in accordance with law, rules and notification. Till determination which of course shall be completed expeditiously within two months till 17-5-2001. Petitioners shall not be harassed till the aforesaid date It is pertinent to mention here that I have taken the aforesaid view in various writ petitions. I am not in a position to deviate from my own judgment as per principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muzaffar Khan's case (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 9).