MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.1998 of a Division bench of the Lahore High Court whereby ICA filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 4.2.1998 of a learned Single Judge of the said Court, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 went abroad-sand worked there in different capacities, he ultimately went to Kinshasa Zaire and established business there by opening a shop of electronic goods, he earned foreign exchange and sent it to Pakistan and opened account with the ANZ Grindlay's, an authorized bank. In this account, he had an amount of 10000 sterling pounds on 12.10.1994. On 16.1.-1995, he purchased ten Foreign Currency bearer Certificates of the value of 10000 sterling pounds each. These were purchased for a period of five years and profit of 11 % per annum, was payable on the same. As per entries on the said certificates, the choice was with the respondent either to receive this profit in Pakistani currency or in sterling pounds. He had been receiving the profit. Subsequently, however, these certificates were, according to the respondent, affected by termite to the extent that they were torn into small pieces. An FIR was lodged on 20.7.1996 at Police Station, Gulshan-i-Ravi, Lahore in which details were given as to how and in what manner, the certificates were kept in Almirah wrapped in cloth for their safe custody when they were affected by termite. He made application to Governor, State Bank of Pakistan for issuance of duplicate certificates so that he may be able to draw profit of his had earned money.. It was declined through letter dated 22.8.1996 which is reproduced below in extenso:-- "Dear Sir, FOREIGN CURRENCY BEARER CERTIFICATES EATEN BY TERMITE WORTH 100000 STERLING POUND Please refer to your letter dated the 15th August 1996 on the above mentioned August, 1996 on the above mentioned subject addressed to the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan.
Your request for issuance of duplicate Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates worth 100000 sterling pounds stated to have been eaten up by the termite was examined thoroughly but your will appreciate that the Certificates in question are bearer in character and that the Rules Governing Scheme of Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates do not permit entertainment of claim of any nature in case any certificate is lost, destroyed, mutilated or burnt.
We are, therefore, unable to assist you in the matter."
3. It is manifest from this reply that the case of State Bank of Pakistan was that Rules governing the matter relating to Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates did not permit entertainment of claim of any nature in case such a certificate is lost, destroyed, mutilated or burnt. In other words, it was conveyed to the respondent that as regards Foreign Currency Bearer Certificate, the holder is not entitled to obtain duplicate certificates in case they are lost, destroyed, mutilated or burnt meaning thereby that holders of such certificates had no security whatsoever as regards their investment in the' form of Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates in Pakistan.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed Constitutional Petition before the High Court for a direction to the State Bank of Pakistan to issue duplicate Foreign Bearer Certificates. It was contested by the appellant on similar grounds as were stated in the said reply dated 22.8.1996. It was the case of. The appellant that these Foreign Bearer Currency Certificates were government security falling within the purview of Section 2(2)(a)(iv) of the Public Debt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which were issued under Five Years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates Rules, 1992 duly notified, therefore, were governed by the said Rules in case they are lost, destroyed, mutilated or burnt and not by section 11 of the Public Debt Act, 1944 as pleaded by the respondent.
The case of the respondent, it appears before the High Court was that by their nature, these Foreign Bearer Currency Certificates were bonds as defined in section 2(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, therefore, as regards issuance of duplicate thereof, they were governed by section 11 of the Act, therefore, he was entitled to get duplicate certificates, as such, State Bank of Pakistan was bound to issue the same.
5. After considering the relevant provisions of the Act inclusive of sections 1 and 11 (1-A) of the Act and rules framed in 1992 on which reliance was placed by the appellant and definition of bond as.
Given in Blacks Law Dictionary, the said expression as used in Stamp Act, 1 889, the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court came to the following conclusions contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of his judgment which are reproduced below in extenso:-- "15. The case of the petitioner is further fortified from the examination of Rules, 1946. These rules define mutilated security, lost security, defaced security and not mutilated certificate or bond or lost certificate or bond or defaced certificate or bond. The security is a term of larger import under which would fall both a certificate and a bond. Rule 11 of these rules which lays down elaborate procedure for dealing with the claims only talks of Government security. It has not been the case 'of the respondent before me that the lost certificates are not Government security. The denial of the claim, therefore, is again invalid on this ground as well.
16. The argument of discrimination raised by Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate Is also relevant and valid. I pointedly put it to Mr. Rehan Nawaz, Advocate, as well as the official of the State Bank who specially flew from Karachi to participate in the hearing, to indicate the reason whereby the State Bank of Pakistan accept to process the case for issue of duplicate bonds in case they are lost, destroyed, mutilated or defaced by refuses the same in case of certificates. Both a certificate as well as a bond can be bearer and while respondent accepts claim in respect of bearer bond, denies it in' respect of a certificate. No reason was given justifying different treatment in case of bond and certificate. It was however, argued that as the certificates are bearer and in case of loss etc., the Bank can always be confronted with bogus claim. But this is equally true of the bearer bond.
Learned counsel and the representative of the Bank could only fall back upon the Rules, 1992 to contend that since the rule does not provide for the issue of duplicate or the cash value of the bearer certificate, therefore, the impugned denial of the Bank is valid. I have already held the above rule as ultra vires of the Act, and consequently this argument has no force".
6. Attending to argument of learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner that it was a case of discrimination equal treatment under the law to bearer of similar securities by to persons inasmuch as there were provisions for issuance of duplicate bearer bonds in case they are lost, mutilated, destroyed or burnt whereas the same treatment was not being given to the holder of Foreign Currency Bearer Certificate, for the reason for refuels to issue duplicate certificates in the later case as given before the High Court was that there was possibility of bogus claims, it was held that if chance of bogus claim was the reason in case of holder of Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates, the same was also applicable to bearer bonds as per their nature, for they also fell within the same category as regards encasement, therefore, it was a case of discrimination. Rule 11 of the Five Years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificate Rules, 1992 was held to be ultra vires of the Act on the touch stone of section 11 and section 2(2)(a)(iii) therefor, it was held that under rule 14 of the Public Debt Rules, 1946 elaborate procedure of processing the claim of issuance of duplicate in case of loss, etc., of bearer bonds had been given and if the same was followed, there was no chance of any false claim as sch, holder of Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates could not be deprived of their property merely on this apprehension. It was admitted before the learned Single Judge of the High Court during the hearing of the Constitutional Petition by representative of the State Bank of Pakistan which was also reiterated by Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appellant during arguments before use that each of the certificates in question was numbered and record maintained in the State Bank of Pakistan. Respondent No. 2-ANZ Grindlay's Bank who issued the certificate also admitted maintenance of the record of these certificates with reference to number of each of the certificates, therefore, it was held that there was no substance at all in the plea that absence of provision with regard to issuance of duplicate certificate in respect of loss of certificate of such nature was for ensuring safety against false claim. Consequently, the writ petition was accepted through judgment dated 4.2.1998 against which ICA filed by the appellant has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 18.3.1998 against which this appeal by leave is directed.
7. Leave was granted to consider the following points:-
(i) Whether the High Court rightly held rule 11 to be ultra- vires section 11 of the Public Debt Act, 1944?
(ii) What is the nature of a foreign currency bearer certificate? Can it be equated with a bond as held by the High Court?
(iii) Whether the foreign currency bearer certificates are governed by para (iii) of section 2(a) of the Public Debt Act, 1 944?
(iv) Whether rule 14 of the Rules of 1946 and section 11(1) of the Public Debt Act are attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case or section 11(1-A) would govern the situation?
(v) Whether in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court could give finding as to the genuineness of the claim of the respondent?
8. In support of this appeal, Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:-
(a) That Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates were issued under Five Years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates Rules, 1992 therefore, these certificates were themselves a class apart from government securities covered by section 2 (2)(a)(iii) of the Apt, as such, were governed and regulated in all matters including the issuance of duplicate certificates by these rules;
(b) That this being so, rule 11 of the said rules expressly prohibits entertainment Of any claim of any nature in case any of the said certificates, is lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or burnt as such, the decision of the State Bank of Pakistan based on the said rules framed by the Government of Pakistan was justified in law;
(c) That in view of above submissions, borrowing of the definition of the bond as given in Black's Law Dictionary, Stamp Act and other Statutes as done by the learned Judges of the High Court was neither justified nor proper, for according to the well established principle of interpretation of Statutes and the statutory rules, if a matter is expressly provided in the relevant Statute or the Rules, decision should rest on the provisions of the Statute and the Rules;
(d) That it being not a case of unoccupied filed in view of submission No(c), decision to determine the nature of the document and the rights of the holder in case of its loss could not be based on reasons out side the provisions of the Statute and the rules themselves providing in express terms the matters as to issuance of duplicate certificates terms the matters as to issuance of duplicate certificates in case they are lost, destroyed, burnt or mutilated.
9. To elaborate his submissions, he firstly called our attention to form of bond defined in section 2(2)(a) (iii) ibid attached with Public Debt Rules, 1946 and form of bond, as provided tinder Five Years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates Rules, 1992.
10. Form of bond as attached with public debt Rules, 1946 is as follows:-- Form IC (See rule 2(5B)] Government of Pakistan Rs......
Government @ bond No. The 19 The President of Pakistan hereby promises to pay To.................................
Or order at the Treasury at Karachi, at any time at the opting of the Government subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, Notification.
No... Dated ........
Rs........ and to pay, at the Treasury above- mentioned, interest on the above sum from the ............. Day of ............ 19 .............. To the date on which the same shall be paid as aforesaid, at the rate of........ Per cent per annum, such interest to be paid biannually on or after the day of ........... Every year.
Date of issue................ Rs...............
No........................
For and on behalf of the President of Pakistan Chief Manager, Governor, State Bank of Pakistan State Bank of Pakistan Public Debt Office".
The form of FCBC attached with 1992 Rules is as follows:~ Government of Pakistan U S. Dollar ;___________ :_________ U.S. Dollar Deutsch Mark Deutsch Mark Pound Sterling ' Pound Sterling Japanese Yen - Japanese Yen Five Years foreign Currency Bearer Certificate No.0000000000 No.000000000000 The bearer of this Certificate is entitled to receive payment of U.S. Dollar U.S. Dollar Deutsch Mark Pound Sterling 1 Japanese Yen_____________ _________________ five years (face value in words) after date of issue and the profit ____________________ % per annum payable half yearly in accordance with the Five years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates Rules, 1992 on presentation of the Office of Issue.
By order of the ' President of Pakistan Date of issue ________________ Date & Stamp of Office of Issue.
Governor State Bank of Pakistan No. Rate Amount in F.Cy. Pak Rs.
Date of payment No. Rate Amount in F.Cy., Pak. Rs.
Date of Payment Transferable by delivery.
11. To supplement his submissions, Mr. Abid Hasan Minto, ASC, further contended that as is manifest from 1992 rules published in official gazette through notification that the same are expressly applicable to Five Years U.S. Dollar, Deutsch Mark, Pound sterling and Japanese Yen and to no other. These certificates, therefore, in no manner have any nexus with the bearer bond as defined in section 2(2)(a)(iii) as such was a government security falling under clause (iv) of the said section.
12. We have gone through Public Debt Rules, 1 946 and the provisions of the Act and the rules framed in 1992 under which FCBC in question were issued to the respondent and find that the contentions of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, ASC, have considerable force that these certificates were not and could not be construed to be a bearer bond falling under section 2(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, therefore, reliance upon the definition of bond as given in Blacks Law Dictionary, Stamp Act and other Statutes and the dictionary meaning of the expression "bond" was not proper. These FCBC thus are government securities/a category apart from those securities falling under section 2(2)
(a) (i)(ii)(iii) of the Act,-as such it can safely be held that it fell within the ambit of section 2(2)(a)
(iv) of the Act.
13. The arguments of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, ASC, and the above findings find support from the arguments of Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the respondent who brought to our notice that previously, in the year 1985, securities of similar nature were floated by the Federal Government by promulgating Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates Rules, 1985 notified on 6.6.1985. If foreign exchange relatable government securities were already covered by securities in the form of bearer bond provided in section 2(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, there was no need for framing special rules for floating government securities relating to foreign exchange.
14. After having held that certificates in question fall in the category of government security as defined in section 2(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, the next question arises as to what are the rights of the holder of the same in case they were destroyed mutilated or burn.
15. Section 11(1) and (1A) of the Act which are relevant are reproduced below:-- "(1).' Issue of duplicate securities and of new securities on conversion consolidation, sub-division or renewal.- (1) If the person entitled to a Government security applies (not being security in a form notified in pursuance of paragraph (iv) of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of section 2) to the Bank alleging that the security has been lost, stolen or destroyed, or has been defaced or mutilated, the Bank may, o proof to its satisfaction of the loss, theft, destruction, defacement or mutilation of the secretly, subject to such conditions and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, order the issue of a duplicate security payable to the applicant.
"["(1-A) If a Government Security in any of the forms ' notified in pursuance of paragraph (iv) of sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of section 2 has been defaced or mutilated, the holder thereof may, in sch manner, and subject to sch conditions and on payment of such fees, if any as may be notified by Government, apply for the issue of a duplicate security, or for the refund of it value):-- (Provided that, where such Government security is in the form of Prize Bond, the holder thereof may apply only for the refund of its value.").
16. A perusal of these provisions reveals' that section 11(1) is applicable to all government securities other than those notified under section 2(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. The FCBC being a government security notified in pursuance of clause (iv), therefore, was governed in the matter of issuance of duplicate certificate by section 11(1A).
17. A comparison of these to provisions shows that a person entitled to a Government security falling under section 2(2)(a)(i) to (iii) has a right to apply for issuance of duplicate certificate if it is lost, stolen or destroyed or defaced or mutilated- whereas in the case of a security notified under clause (iv) of the said section, duplicate certificate could be issued only in case the [same had been defaced or mutilated. Prima facie, this provision does not contain any provision for issuance of duplicate in case such a security is lost, stolen or destroyed. Rule 11 of Five Years Foreign Currency Bearer Certificates Rules, 1992 reads as under:- "11. No claim of any nature will be entertained in case of any certificate is lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or burnt".
18. The rule shows that no claim whatsoever of ,any nature will be entertained in case of any of such certificate is lost; destroyed, mutilated or burnt.
19. We have seen that section 11(1 A) of the Act provides a right to holder of such a certificate to have issued a duplicate one in case the original had been defaced or mutilated, therefore, this rule to the extent that no claim shall be entertained even in case the same had been defaced or mutilated is ultra vires of the said provisions of the act, therefore, could neither be pressed into service nor enforced.
20. Having found that rule 11 is ultra vires of the provisions of section 11(1 A) of the Act to the extent of defaced or mutilated Certificates in the matter of issuance of duplicate thereof, the next question which falls for consideration is whether these certificates can be held to have been mutilated or defaced. The case of the respondent was that the certificates in question were affected by termite and were reduced into small places. Learned counsel for the appellant when questioned admitted that those small pieces have been provided to the bank by the respondent. The term "defaced" or "mutilated" has not been defined in the Act itself but instead of relying upon dictionary meaning of these terms, we have to explore all possible avenues to find out whether any meanings have been assigned to them in the 1 946 Rules framed under the said ct in respect of Government securities, for section 11(1) in relation to other scarcities covers the cases of defacement or mutilation also, therefore, it would be safe rather legally justified to involve the said definition or meaning assigned to these expressions in the rules.
20. Rule 2(7) of the Public Debut Rules, 1946 defines mutilated security as under:-- "(7) "Mutilated Security" means a security which has been destroyed, torn of damaged in material parts thereof and the material parts of a security are those where:-
(i) the number, loan to which it belongs and the face value of the security or payments to interest are recorded, or
(ii) the endorsement or the name of the payee is written or the transfer is executed, or
(iii) the renewal receipt is supplied".
21. Sub Rules (8) and (9) of this rule define the term "lost security" and "defaced security" as under:- - " (8) "Lost Security" means a security which has actually been lost and shall not mean a security which is * in possession some person adversely to the claimant.
(9) "Defaced Security" means a security which has been made illegible or rendered undecipherable in material parts".
22. From a bare reading of these definitions of mutilated security, lost security and defaced security given in these rules, it is clear that in case of mutilated security and defaced security, the document itself is available in some form but the same has been destroyed or damaged to such an extent that the material parts of its have been materially damaged whereas in the case of lost security, the original document itself is not available with the holder.
23. Considering the case of the respondent on the touch stone of this definition of mutilated security and defaced security, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the respondent's case was a case of mutilated security, for the documents themselves are available but in torn pieces having been affected by termite where material parts are neither visible nor decipherable. It was a case which squarely falls within the ambit of section 11 (1 A) of the Act, therefore, the respondent could not be denied his right to obtain duplicate certificates.
24. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto ASC, when faced with this situation tried to over come it by arguing that rules for issuance of duplicate certificates for government scarcities covered by section 2(2)(a)(iv) of the Act have not been framed by the Federal Government, as such, the State Bank of Pakistan which was a subordinate organization of the Federal Government could not be its on issue duplicate thereof in the absence of such rules, for the existing rule 11 does not permit the State Bank to issue duplicate certificate in any circumstance.
25. Though the findings recorded above that the present one is a case of mutilated and defaced security and the respondent has been found to be entitled to get the duplicate of the certificates u/S. 11(1-A) of the Act and rule 11 of 1992 Rules barring the issuance of duplicate thereof are ultra vires of the Act is sufficient to grant relief to the respondent but in order to avoid any impression that by holding so, we may not be taken to have held thus in case such a certificate is lost, burnt or destroyed, the holder is not entitled to get duplicate certificates, we have examined the case further. Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that in order to encourage investments and savings through foreign exchange in the Country so as to improve upon the economy of the Country, the Federal Government promulgated Ordinance No. XXXIX of 1991 (Protection of Economic Reforms Ordinance, 1991 and Ordinance No. III of 1992 (Protection of Economic Reforms Ordinance, 1992 and thereafter Act XII of 1992 (Protection of economic Reforms Act, 1992. He has referred to various provisions of Act No. XII of 109 92 in order to demonstrate that the savings and investments made by the citizens of Pakistan in the form of foreign exchange was given blanket protection as to its security and payment to the investor.
26. From a bare perusal of definition of "Economic Reforms" as given in section 2(1 )(b) of Act XII of 1992 and in the to proceeding Ordinances appears that any investment or saving made in foreign exchange after seventh day of November, 1990 was covered by the said Act. It would be advantageous to reproduce section 2(1 )(b) of the Act with is as under:-- "(b) "economic reforms" means economic policies and programmes, laws and regulations announced, promulgated or implemented by the Government on the after the seventh day of November, 1990, relating to privatization of Public sector enterprises, and nationalized banks, promotion of savings and investments, introduction of fiscal incentives for industrialization and deregulation of investment, banking, finance, exchange and payments systems, holding and transfer of currencies"
27. Section 3 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947), the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (XXXI of 1979), or any other law for the time being in force. Section 4 of the Act allows freedom to bring, hold, sell, transfer and take out foreign exchange within or out of Pakistan in any form. Section 10 of the Act reads as under:-- "10. Protection of financial obligation.-- All financial obligations incurred including those under any instrument, or any financial and contractual commitment made by or on behalf of the Government shall continue to remain in force, and shall not be a altered to the disadvantage of the beneficiaries."
The cumulative effect of reading of different sections of this Act and the preceding to Ordinances which are similar in nature is that these laws have overriding effect and the savings and investment s made in the form of foreign exchange in any manner in Pakistan have been given blanket protection and solemn commitment given by the Federal Government as embodied in different provisions of these laws that any such investments or savings made in the form of foreign exchange is saved notwithstanding anything contained in any other law to the contrary and such a saving and investment could not be altered to the disadvantage of the beneficiaries.
28. Rules regarding FGBC in question were promulgated through notification on seventh of March, 1992. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that they were promulgated to give effect to the provisions of the above laws to facilitate making of the investments and savings in the form of foreign exchange in Pakistan. As has already been seen, provisions of these laws have overriding effect, therefore, it can safely be held that section 11(1 A) of the Act providing that duplicate certificates could be issued only in case, they are mutilated or defaced and not if they are lost, burnt or destroyed, is calculated to negate the protection given by Economic Reforms Act, 1992 to investments and saving made in the foreign exchange, for it deprives altogether the makers of their investments and savings.
29. This being so, rule 11 of Public Debt Rules, 1992 and section 11(1 A) of the Act are in conflict with the provisions of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 and the provisions of the to preceding Ordinances, therefore, the latter shall prevail and the holder of such a certificate even in case the original is lost, burnt or destroyed is entitled to get duplicate certificate to make use of such investments and savings. This interpretation is also in consonance with the fundamental right enshrined in Article 24(1) of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property and the Constitution also provides that in case, the property of a person is acquired compulsorily, provision shall be made for payment of compensation therefore.
30. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appellants then maintained that in view of above findings, the holder of FCBC is entitled to get duplicate thereof in case it is mutilated, defaced, burnt or destroyed but the government has not framed any rules providing procedure for issuance of duplicate, for under rule 11 of 1992 Rules, no claim for issuance of duplicate certificate was entertainable. He has also maintained that under the Act, it is the Federal Government which is empowered to frame the rules and not the State Bank of Pakistan, as such, duplicate certificates cannot be issued till such, time rules are framed for which State Bank cannot be blamed.
31. The argument though appears to be ingenuous but not tenable on close scrutiny. Since the investments or savings made by a citizen through FCBC has been held to have been protected and saved under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1 992 and holder of such certificate is entitled to use an derive benefit of such investments and savings, therefore, till such time rules are framed regarding issuance of duplicate of sch certificates, Public Debt Rules, 1946 framed under the Act relating to o. The securities in case they are mutilated, defaced lost or burnt can safely be invoked and followed. We find that rule 14 of the said Rules which dealt with issuance of duplicate bearer bond lays down elaborate procedure to ensure that no false claim is entertained, should be followed.
32. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, ASC, when asked frankly stated on instructions that elaborate inquiry held by the State Bank of Pakistan establishes that the certificates were issued in the name of the respondent and particulars of the same are available in the record maintained by the concerned bank and that the same had not been encased by any person. He has also admitted that broken pieces of the damaged original certificates have been provided to the bank. Necessary notifications in the official gazette have also been issued both in the Province and Federal Government copies of which have been placed on the record as required under the rules governing issuance of duplicate thereof and no claim whatsoever has uptil today been filed by any other person. This being so, there is no hindrance in the way of issuance of duplicate certificate to the respondent holder of such certificates to secure the amount invested by him trough the said certificates and the profit which they had earned during all this period.
33. Lastly, Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, ASC, prayed for expungement of the remarks made by the Division bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment condemning a criticizing the conduct of the State Bank of adopting an attitude of declining to issue duplicate certificate for the reason that the State Bank bonafidely acted under the rules framed by the Federal Government and not it on.
34. We have gone through the findings of the Division Bench and find that no derogatory remarks of condemnation have been made. We may, however, observe that the act of the State Bank of Pakistan of declining to issue duplicate certificate was based on rule 11 of 1992 Rules framed by the Federal Government, therefore, bad faith or any ulterior motive cannot be attributed to it.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal has not merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.