' Admittedly, the petitioner availed loan facility, to the tune of Rs,3 lacs from the respondent- Corporation and he has, statedly, repaid the said amount. It has been narrated in the petition that now respondent No,3 has served a notice of demand upon the petitioner, thereby demanding a payment of Rs,2,90,772, which according to the petitioner, is not at all due against the petitioner. It has been stated in the petition that no suit for recovery was filed by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner and, thus, the amount is still undetermined and cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Prima facie, on account of service of demand notice and apprehending adoption of coercive measures at the hand of the respondents and its functionaries, the petitioner has resorted to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, hence the present petition.
2. In fact, through the filing of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of demand notice by respondent-Bank. It is settled law that the issuance of demand notice cannot be called in question through the filing of the Constitutional petition as per principle laid down in Shagufta Begum v. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-XI, Zone B, Lahore PLD 1989 SC 360 and Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khoso v. Branch Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Jhatpat (Dera Allah Yar) Branch and 3 others 2000 SCM R 1017, this Court being guided by aforesaid law declared, I am constrained to hold that the present Constitutional petition is not competent.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner availed the financial facility from the respondent-Corporation and executed different greements/documents of his own free-will. The petitioner wants enforcement of those agreements/ documents through the filing of 'the present Constitutional petition, which is not permissible under the law, as per principle laid down in Mumtaz Masud's case 1994 SCM R 2287.
4. So far as the charging of interest/mark-up is concerned, suffice it to say that this Court in view of Article 203-G of the Constitution has got no power or jurisdiction, under the law, to determine the same as per principle laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Citibank N. A.
2001 CLC 158. Furthermore, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashim and 8 others PLD 2000 SC 225, has held that no doubt interest/ Riba is un-Islamic, but past and closed transactions cannot be re-opened.
5. In addition to that, the petitioner is admittedly a `customer' therefore, he can file a suit for the redressal of his alleged grievance before the learned Banking Court under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, thus, an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the petitioner. The present petition is hit by Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, not competent.
6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel to the effect that the statement of accounts has not been provided to the petitioner, and that he has paid the principal amount, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to settle his accounts/matter. In view of this, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Manager of the respondent-Corporation on 10-6-2002, to discharge his liabilities strictly in accordance with law, rules and the terms of the agreement. The Manager of the respondent-Corporation is directed to provide the facility of instalments and to give benefits/concessions to the petitioner of the incentive schemes, issued by the respondent-Corporation off and on, in case the petitioner's case falls within the parameters and four corners of the incentive scheme and to pass an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law and rules after hearing the petitioner. Till the determination of the actual amount due' against the petitioner, as noted above, which exercise must be. Completed within 30 days from 10- 6-2002, the respondent-Corporation is restrained to take any action or coercive measures, for the recovery of said outstanding amount, against the petitioner and his sureties.
7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.