Law:

Section:

THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA JUSTICE:---.--- SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J. -This writ petition calls into question the placing of the name of the petitioner on the list of Credit Information Bureau (CIB) maintained by State Bank of Pakistan as a defaulter of respondent No. 4. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner availed a finance facility from respondent No. 4 for the purchase of six Hino buses. On account of default by the petitioner in his repayment obligations, respondent No. 4 filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 12,897,319/-. On the contest by the petitioner, he was granted leave to defend the suit. The said suit is still pending adjudication before the banking court. Notwithstanding the fact that the application for leave to defend the suit was allowed, the petitioner's name was placed on the CIB by the State Bank of Pakistan. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11792 of 2009 which was disposed of with a direction to the State Bank of Pakistan to pass a decision thereon. In the meantime, the credit card of the petitioner obtained from Habib Bank Limited was blocked on account of his name being on the CIB. The petitioner once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23966 of 2010 which was disposed of on 10.11.2010 with a direction to the State Bank of Pakistan to hear the petitioner. As a result of the direction given by this Court, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by the State Bank of Pakistan and vide order dated 21.03.2011 his name was declined to be removed from the CIB, hence this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the provisions of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 (the Ordinance) confer any power upon State Bank of Pakistan to impose a penalty relating to a particular conduct of the borrower. It was further submitted that section 25-A of the Ordinance conferred unbridled powers upon the banks/financial institutions to decide the status of a customer as a defaulter and makes them a judge in their own cause. It was also the case of the petitioner that the mechanism of CIB presupposes a default, which is otherwise…