BASHIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MULTAN And 5 OTHER
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of his brother, who was detained due to default in repaying a loan obtained from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could intervene to secure the release of a loan defaulter detained for non-payment, particularly when the defaulter claimed unavoidable circumstances like crop failure. The court held that the detention of a defaulter is a valid recovery measure and does not necessarily have to be a last resort, as the creditor retains the option to choose the method of recovery. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner had bypassed the appropriate forum, specifically the Special Judge, Banking Court at Multan. The court affirmed that it would not interfere in the recovery process, noting that the petitioner's claims of calamity-affected land were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is limited in matters where alternative statutory remedies exist and where the recovery of bank dues is legally permissible through detention.
- Is the detention of a loan defaulter required to be a last resort measure for the recovery of bank dues?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere in the recovery of bank dues when the petitioner has bypassed the Special Judge, Banking Court?
- Can a creditor choose to detain a defaulter as the primary method for recovering bank dues?
ORDER
Petitioner's brother, Ghulam Hussain has been detained because of his default in payment of the amount of loan that he has obtained from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and he is sought to be set at liberty.
2. It is submitted by Bashir Ahmad petitioner that Ghulam Hussain did not make the payment on account of heavily rainfall and effect of virus on cotton crop, He was prevented from discharging his liability, owing to unavoidable circumstances, beyond his control.
3. Ghulam Hussain's liability is not disputed and it has actually been said that he is prepared to deposit the entire amount, alongwith interest, within a period of two months, after harvesting his cotton crop. It is also admitted that Bank dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It is however contended that the first step should be auction of the property pledged with the bank.
4. It is not denied that even detention of a defaulter may be made and this measure has not to be adopted as the last resort; it may be the first step, depending on the option of the creditor. It is also to be borne in mind that the aggrieved person could have approached the Special Judge, Banking Court at Multan, in the first instance. He has however rushed to this Court without realizing that scope of exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court has its limits.
5. Both the brothers, Bashir Ahmad petitioner and Ghulam Hussain are co-owners in a joint Khata, and the petitioner is said to have liquidated his liability. He too was a loanee. If he could do it, there is no reason why Ghulam Hussain, could not perform his obligations. It is therefore doubtful if his land was actually calamity-affected. It may however, be observed that it would be open to the bank to give due consideration to the so-called compassionate or humanitarian grounds invoked by the defaulter, coupled with a solemn undertaking given about payment of the entire dues within a short period of two months; and it is hoped that the bank people will show a soft attitude towards the defaulter. This Court however has to enforce the law, as it is and is not to be swayed by the pleas and the undertaking alluded to above. The writ petition is not entertainable and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 8 cases
- Rao MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT ZAKAT AND USHR 2002 YLR 2691
- JAVED UL HASSAN NAQVI vs FAZAL HAQUE RANJHA and 3 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1224
- JAVED-UL-HASSAN NAQVI vs FAZAL HAQUE RANJHA, TEHSILDAR (RECOVERY), DIRECTORATE OF FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE & 3 Other K.L.R. 2002 Revenue Cases 30
- MUHAMMAD TANVIR ASHRAF vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, FAISALABAD and 2 others 2001 YLR 1444
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And 3 Other 2001 MLD 1608
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 2001 C.L.R. 1413
- BASMA TABASSAM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and 6 others 1999 MLD 778
- SHAHID HUSSAIN QURESHI vs MANAGER, SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE K.L.R. 200I Revenue Cases 186