Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Legal Background
- Petitioner’s Claims
- Court’s Observations
- Court’s Decision
- Conclusion
- Contact Information
High Court Dismisses Petition in Interest-Based Loan Case
Introduction
Malik Tajamal Hayat Khan filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. He sought relief against individuals who allegedly defrauded him in an interest-based loan transaction. The Peshawar High Court heard the case and issued its decision.
Legal Background
The petitioner relied on Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016. He also referenced Articles 4, 9, 14, and 19 of the Constitution, which guarantee fundamental rights such as life, reputation, property, liberty, and movement. He argued that the respondents violated these rights through fraudulent financial activities.
Petitioner’s Claims
The petitioner owned and operated the Institute of Computer and Management Sciences, a private school system with branches across the province. He claimed that money lenders deceived him into taking interest-based loans. Even after repaying the principal amount and a significant profit, he continued to face threats and harassment from these lenders.
He requested the court to:
- Declare that his fundamental rights were being violated.
- Direct authorities to form a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the fraudulent loan transactions.
- Provide security for his protection against harassment.
Court’s Observations
The court reviewed the petition and noted that the petitioner had already approached multiple legal forums, including:
- A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before a Judicial Magistrate.
- A complaint under Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016.
- A civil suit for declaration, injunction, and compensation before the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar.
- A case under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, before the District Judge, Peshawar.
The court determined that these ongoing legal proceedings were sufficient to address his grievances. It also stated that constitutional jurisdiction does not serve as a substitute for alternative legal remedies.
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that:
- The petitioner had already sought relief from relevant legal forums.
- The issues raised involved intricate legal and factual questions that required proper evidence.
- The law does not allow constitutional petitions when alternative legal remedies exist.
The court concluded that the petitioner should continue his legal battle through the appropriate forums instead of seeking constitutional intervention.
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of using the correct legal channels for grievance redressal. The court reinforced that constitutional jurisdiction cannot replace the legal process in specialized courts. It also underscored the necessity of addressing fraud and financial exploitation through proper legal mechanisms.
Contact Information
For legal assistance, contact Advocate Muhammad Amin at 0313-9708019.