P L D 2006 Karachi 193 (PLP)
ASHFAQ YOUSUF TOLA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2006 Karachi 193 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHFAQ YOUSUF TOLA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Exit from Pakistan Control Ordinance (XLVI of 1981), (a) Exit from Pakistan Control Ordinance (XLVI of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Karachi 193 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Exit from Pakistan Control Ordinance (XLVI of 1981), (a) Exit from Pakistan Control Ordinance (XLVI of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Karachi 193 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Karachi 193 (PLP) (ASHFAQ YOUSUF TOLA — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Islamabad — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for Petitioner.
- S. Ziauddin Nasir for Respondent.
- Learned counsel for petitioner states that the name of the petitioner was placed on the exit control list on 19th July, 1999 on account of certain allegations against him which formed the subject-matter of a reference filed before the NAB. According to the learned counsel however, apparently he addressed several letters/notices to the authorities but no order recalling the same was passed. On the contrary through a letter dated 25-4-2002 his request for doing so on 18-2-2002 was regretted. While the petitioner kept on moving the authorities the only response he got was in the form of a letter dated 25-4-2004 regretting his request.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.4, 9, 15 & 199
Constitutional petition
Placing of petitioner's name on Exit Control List
Dispute of petitioner with National Accountability Bureau already settled four years ago
No allegation of any criminal offence against petitioner
Absence of declaration on behalf of authority for its failure to assign ground on consideration of public interest
Impugned action would amount to a serious inroad on petitioner's liberty
High Court accepted constitutional petition while directing forthwith removal of petitioner's name from the Exit Control List.
S. 2
Constitution of Pakistan (197), Arts. 4, 9 & 15
Power to prohibit exit from Pakistan
Scope
Such power available to Federal Government. was subject to well-established limits
Before passing an order, person concerned would normally be heard, unless considered in public interest not to specify the grounds.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for petitioner states that the name of the petitioner was placed on the exit control list on 19th July, 1999 on account of certain allegations against him which formed the subject-matter of a reference filed before the NAB. According to the learned counsel however, apparently he addressed several letters/notices to the authorities but no order recalling the same was passed. On the contrary through a letter dated 25-4-2002 his request for doing so on 18-2-2002 was regretted. While the petitioner kept on moving the authorities the only response he got was in the form of a letter dated 25-4-2004 regretting his request. Learned counsel asserted that after settlement of the dispute with NAB there could be no conceivable justification for placing fetters upon his right of movement. Having failed to obtain redress from the concerned quarters he moved this Court and notices were issued to respondents after admitting the petition on 26-10-2005. It is well-established that though the power to prohibit a person from leaving Pakistan is available to the Federal Government such power is subject to well-established limits. Normally a person is bound to be heard before passing of the order unless it is considered in the public interest not to specify grounds. In the instant case there appears to be no declaration that failure to assign grounds was based on any consideration of public interest. Learned standing Counsel who had appeared on the last date of hearing requested for two weeks time to obtain instructions but states that despite having addressed letter to the concerned officers no response has been received. The petitioner has admitted that at one time there were certain allegations against him which could amount to offence under the Accountability Act but the matter was amicably settled about four years ago and there is no allegation of any criminal offence against him. This contention goes un-rebutted. We are therefore of the view that placement of the petitioner's name on the ECL amounts to a serious inroad on his liberty and it is directed that his name should be removed forthwith from the ECL. The petition is allowed. S.A.K./A-18/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.