The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner through this Constitutional petition has taken exception to the charge of interest being violative of Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband Muhammad Dawood secured loan of Rs.1,35,500 by the respondents in the year 1992 for the purchase of tractor and an agreement was executed and according to the terms thereof the loan was repaid through instalments. Petitioner's husband also secured loan of Rs.71,550 in the aforesaid year 1992 by the respondents for the purchase of trolley and agreement was also executed by him with the respondent Bank and according to the terms thereof the loan was repaid through instalments.
Petitioner's husband has repaid loan qua the loan agreement for the purchase of tractor to the respondents Rs.1,58,847 and last instalment was repaid amounting to Rs.20,000 on 5-5-2000.
Similarly, her husband also repaid loan to the respondents qua the loan for the purchase of trolley Rs.25,974. Respondents demanded from petitioner Rs.1,38,879 regarding the first loan and Rs.1,13,879 regarding the loan obtained by her husband regarding purchase of trolley.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband has paid more than principal amount and rest of the demand of the respondents is purely interest/Riba which is not only violative of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah but also in consonance with the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court PLD 1992 FSC l and Shariat Appellate Bench of Shariat Court PLD 2000 SC 225.
He further' Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case further submits that the petitioner is widow and her age is about seventy year. Her husband died in the month of January, 2000 leaving behind petitioner widow, four daughters and two sons who are married and living independently and separately. The learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that respondents Bank without determining the share and liability of the legal heirs of her husband pressurised the petitioner to discharge all the liabilities of her late husband.
3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is contractual matter which has arisen out of an agreement earlier executed between the parties of their own sweet---will as such the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution would not be attracted as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments.
Mumtaz Masood's case 1994 SCM R 2287, The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate Tippera etc. PLD 1958 SC 267 Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca etc. PLD 1962 SC 108.
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 under the law to determine the same. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid case of Muhammad Aslam Khaki has held that no doubt interest/Ribah is un-Islamic but past and closed transactions are not to be reopened. The learned counsel of the petitioner has argued that her husband has already paid Rs.1,58,847 plus Rs.25,974 to the respondents, therefore, balance amount Rs.1,18,301 plus Rs.1,13,879 is not borne out from the record of the respondents and respondents failed to provide copy of the accounts to the petitioner. In view of the matter petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 to discharge her liability of the respondent Bank strictly in accordance with law and rules read with the terms of the agreement.
Respondent No.1 shall allow her any benefit/concession permissible in such-like cases under the law rules and Notification. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent Bank Manager on 18- 5-2000 who has already directed would determine liabilities strictly, in accordance with law and rules. Till determination which of course would be completed expeditiously within twenty days till 8- 6-2000. The petitioner shall not be harassed till the aforesaid date It is strange to note that Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan has initiated proceedings against the small owners for the recovery of the loans from the small owners. Respondent Bank Manager failed to initiate proceedings immediately just after the first instalment due from the husband of the petitioner. This fact shows that the bank functionaries also contributory negligent due to which aforesaid amount of the bank accumulated against the petitioner husband. It is the duty and obligation of the bank authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner husband as mentioned above immediately when the first instalment was due against the petitioner husband. It is pertinent to mention here that it appears that these Bank functionaries under the directions of their superiors initiated proceedings for recovery through coercive measures from the, small owners who have secured/obtained loans for the purchase of tractors/trollies but as is evident from the last one month small owners have filed writ petitions but the big landlords who had obtained huge loans from the respondent bank did not file any writ petitions which brings the situation where possibility cannot be ruled out that the bank authorities have not initiated proceedings against the landlords who have obtained big loans from the Agricultural Development Bank, therefore, the same is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter let a copy of the writ petition be sent to Chairman/President of Agricultural Development of Pakistan and Secretary Finance who are directed to look into the matter and constitute a high-powered Committee to formulate policy to save the interest of the bank and also save the small owners by making policy so that they are in a position to discharge their liabilities in easy instalments.