The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner secured a loan from the respondent-- Corporation in the sum of Rs.2,50,000. An agreement was also executed between the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the petitioner had to repay the loan to the respondents-Corporation in easy instalments. The petitioner had repaid Rs.1,90,000 to the respondents and could not repay the remaining amount of loan to the respondents-Corporation on account of loss of his business. The petitioner had submitted various applications before the respondents for allowing him to discharge his liabilities in easy instalments. The petitioner also approached the respondents to provide him statement of account but the respondents failed to provide statement of account to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. He further submits that the respondents have no lawful authority to demand the amount in question without determining the amount against the petitioner in accordance with law, therefore, action of respondents is without lawful authority. He relied upon the case of Ibrahim v. Small Business Finance Corporation 2002 CLD Lahore 176.
2. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that writ petition is not maintainable.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record myself.
4. It is admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondents executed an agreement of their own sweet will. The petitioner wants enforcement of agreement through this Constitutional petition which is not permissible in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mumtaz Masood's case 1994 SCMR 2287. The petitioner has alternative remedy to file a suit before the competent Court. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per the principle laid down in Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246. It appears that the respondents had issued a notice to the petitioner under section 81 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the higher authorities of the Assistant Collector or to file the reply of the notice before him by raising all legal and factual objections.
However, in the interest of justice and fair play, petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.3 in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 13-11-2002 to discharge his liabilities in terms of the agreement, rules and notification. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of petitioner to discharge his liabilities in easy instalments in the interest of respondent-- Corporation and to save the family of petitioner from destruction. Respondent No.3 is further directed to give benefit/concession to the petitioner under the incentive schemes issued by the respondent of and on. In case the case of -the petitioner falls within the parameters or four corners of the incentive schemes issued by the respondent-- Corporation, then respondent No.3 is also directed to give benefit of the incentive schemes to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 13-11-2002 who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within one month till 13-12-2002. The respondents are directed not to take any action against the petitioner till the aforesaid date in case the respondents had not already taken any final action against the petitioner till date. It is pertinent to mention here that judgment referred by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as the question of maintainability was not raised and decided in the cited judgment.
He is further directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court within the stipulated period. Learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition alongwith all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate-General, who is directed to send the same to respondent No.3 for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.