The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner through this Constitutional petition has taken exception to the charge of interest being violative of Holy Qura'n and Sunnah. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured loan Rs.1,85,000 from respondent No.3 for the purchase of Tractor in the year 1990 and an agreement was executed between the parties; according to the terms thereof the loan was repaid through instalments uptil 1999. The petitioner has repaid loan to the respondent-Bank Rs.50,000. The respondents issued notice to the petitioner for repayment of balance amount of Rs.3,03,296.
2. Petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner could not repay the loan on account of bad weather and crops of the petitioner, were destroyed; the petitioner sustained heavily loss on account of the aforesaid circumstances coupled with the facts that petitioner paid other charges to the rising prices electricity etc. The respondents are harassing the petitioner without any justification; he further submits that respondent No.1 issued reschedule policy on 16-7-1996 but respondent No.3 did not give benefit of the aforesaid policy to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petition_ approached respondent No.3 time and again to reschedule his loan after receiving 30% of the amount in default on the basis of the aforesaid policy. That demand of respondents over and above the principal amount is purely interest/"Ribba" which is not only violative of the Holy Qura'n and Sunnah but also in consonance with the judgment of Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Appellate Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Aslam Khaki v. Muhammad Hashim PLD 2000 SC 225.
3. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is contractual matter which has arisen out of an agreement also executed between the parties on their own sweet will as such the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution would not be attracted as the principle laid down in-the following judgments:-- Messrs Momin Motor Company's case PLD 1962 SC 108 and The Chandpur Mills Ltd.'s case PLD 1958 SC 267.
As far as the charge of 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 Honourable Supreme Court has held in Muhammad Aslam Khaki's case (supra) that no doubt interest/Riba is unlslamic but past and closed transactions are not to be re-opened. Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has paid Rs.50,000 to the respondents, therefore, balance amount Rs.3,03,296 is not borne out from the record of the respondents and respondents failed to provide copy of accounts to the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to determine the liability strictly in accordance with law and Rules read with terms of the agreement. He is also directed to allow the petitioner any benefit/concession permissible in such-like cases under the law, Rules and Notification. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 Bank Manager on 15-5-2000, who has already been directed to determine his liability strictly in accordance with law and Rules. Till determination which of course would be completed expeditiously within 20 days till 6-6-2000. The petitioner shall not be harassed till the aforesaid date. Even otherwise the writ petition is not maintainable against the demand notice as per law laid down in Shagufta Begum's case PLD 1989 SC 360.
Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.