Mir NABI BAKHSH KHAN KHOSO vs BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, JHATPAT (DERA ALLAH YAR) BRANCH and 3 others

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 11,11-1999 delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan whereby a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner seeking writ in the nature of prohibition was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that on 28-10-1999 the respondent National Bank of Pakistan issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to make payment of Rs.95,13,694 due from the petitioner as guarantor. On 1-11-1999 the petitioner submitted reply in which he took the stand that neither he had obtained any loan nor was he defaulter, but those persons, who had been advanced loans were in existence and the loan, therefore, should be recovered from them. In reply, the respondent bank sent another notice, dated 4-11-1999 in which it was repeated that the petitioner was a guarantor and the amount referred to above was due from him. The notice further indicated that the loan had been advanced during the period commencing 1978 to 1987, and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the same. The petitioner then sent another reply stating therein that he was not a guarantor and had merely identified the loans at the instance of the bank manager, who had their own interest in advancing the loan. The petitioner further submitted that the warning issued by the Chief Executive of the country was meant only for defaulters and in this case small loans had been advanced to the farmers, which were not covered by the warning of the Chief Executive in his speech.

3. It seems that the said reply was not found satisfactory, and thus, the reply remained unresponded. The petitioner then invoked the jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court by way of filing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking writ in the nature of prohibition against the action of the respondent bank. The said petition was dismissed vide order impugned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and in our view it was rightly held by the learned Judges of the Balochistan High Court that the writ of prohibition could not be issued because no adverse action had been taken by the bank against the petitioner except issuance of notices. The learned Judges in this behalf also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor and another (PLD 1998 SC 201). We have also noticed that the petitioner has taken different stands in his reply as well as the representation, which he had sent in reply to the notices and therefore, it was rightly concluded by the learned Judges of the Balochistan High Court that all these questions are to be decided by the bank officials and therefore, the issuance of writ was premature because no adverse action had been taken against the petitioner.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we also do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.