Supreme Court deems PoS retailer's BISP ID block not a consumer complaint, dismisses restoration order.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint filed by a point‑of‑sale (PoS) agent against the Ben‑azir Income Support Programme (BISP) over the blocking of his retailer ID was not maintainable under consumer protection laws. The case had been heard by a two‑judge bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who set aside the judgments of the Consumer Protection Court in Bannu and the Peshawar High Court’s Bannu bench that had directed BISP and Bank Alfalah to restore the agent’s ID. The complaint stemmed from the blocked ID of Mr Fardayaz Khan, a PoS retailer who was operating under a franchise agreement to distribute BISP payments. Bank Alfalah deactivated his ID in May 2021. After his initial complaint to the Wafaqi Mohtasib was dismissed, he approached the Consumer Protection Court under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, nearly two years later. The court had issued directives on July 1, 2025, ordering BISP and Bank Alfalah to restore the ID or provide written reasons for the blockage. Justice Mazhar’s order, 14 pages long, held that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act of 1997. He noted that the relationship between the complainant and BISP did not constitute a consumer service arrangement. “We held that [the] complaint under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act of 1997 was not maintainable,” the judge observed. In the interest of justice, the Supreme Court directed the BISP director general (cash transfer) in Islamabad to conduct an inquiry and provide the respondent with ample opportunity to explain why his PoS agent’s ID had been blocked. The authority was also instructed to confront the respondent with any complaints received by the BISP Directorate and to issue an appropriate order within 45 days, ensuring that he could seek a lawful remedy. The bench also noted that the respondent’s name did not appear on BISP’s list of PoS agents for the Bannu district, undermining his claim. It emphasized that no contract or consumer relationship existed between the respondent and BISP, rendering the complaint defective from its inception.