1997 PLP 1594 (MLD)

2. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of her visa on the ground that no opportunity was provided to her before cancellation order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been condemned unheard, therefore, the cancellation order of her visa dated 10‑7‑1996 may be declared as without lawful authority and petitioner may be permitted to remain/stay in Pakistan.

3. On the other hand, Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned D.A.G. submits that the petitioner was not entitled to any right of hearing and relied upon PLD 1980 Pesh. 275.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that she has not been able to lay her hand on any reported judgment dealing with the proposition in hand except PLD 1964 Dacca 48.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the above referred judgments. The relevant portion of the judgment reported in PLD 1964 Dacca 48 Ekramul Haq and another v. Province of East Pakistan and others referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reproduced below:‑‑ " ....It is not a condition precedent that the applicant for writ must be citizen of Pakistan. We know of no law which debars a person who is not a national of Pakistan from owning properties in Pakistan and subsequently unless there is a specific status which debars a non- national from obtaining relief by way of writ there can be no question that he can maintain an application for an appropriate writ and obtain relief thereon if he is so entitled."

6. The judgment of the Dacca High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it deals with absolutely different propositions of law in relation to the property owned by the Pakistani which was requisitioned under emergency order of the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna, therefore, this judgment does not favour the petitioner's contentions.

7. As far as the contentions of the D.A.G. are concerned, the same are not without force. The judgment relied by him is directly applicable to the propositions in hand. The relevant portion of the judgment (PLD 1980 Pesh. 275 Jean Charles Groosen v. State of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, is quoted below: " every sovereign State has inherent powers to restrict entry into its territory or the movements in it of any foreigner. This right of a sovereign State cannot be hampered with by any principle of natural justice or on the ground of equity, as such restriction would not be commensurate with the concept of the sovereignty of a State; and the Central Government enjoys unlimited powers under section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1951, to prohibit or to restrict the entry of any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners in Pakistan. "

8. The other judgment referred by the learned D.A.‑G. is of the Division Bench of Karachi High Court reported in PLD 1962 (W.P.) Karachi 595 Said Muhammad Khan v. Registration Officer, C.I.D., Karachi, Pakistan. This judgment also supports the contentions of the respondents. It is prerogative of the Government not to permit to stay in Pakistan beyond certain date to any person who is not citizen of the Pakistan and the Government is not obliged o give reasons. The abovesaid judgment was also given under Foreigners Act XXXI of 1946 read with sections 2(a), 3 and 10 of the Foreigners Order, 1951. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:‑‑ " ....It however cannot be denied that it is open to the Government of Pakistan not to permit any foreigner to stay beyond a certain date. The contention that the authority concerned has not applied its mind in passing the order dated the 26th May, 1960, has no force. The Government of Pakistan is not bound to give its reason why it does not want of a foreigner to stay in Pakistan beyond a certain date. "

9. In the light of the judgments referred above the petitioner being not citizen of Pakistan is not entitled to such relief. It is absolute power of the Government to give or cancel the visa, without hearing or giving any reason and such an order cannot be held without lawful authority. The Government is fully competent to permit any body to stay or to deport any body, who is found not entitled to stay in the country. The order deporting the petitioner from Pakistan cannot be held illegal or without jurisdiction. The order dated 10‑7‑1996 cancelling the Visa of the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. His exercise of such jurisdiction is not colourful and mala fide. No material has been placed on record to establish mala fides on the part of respondent No.2, as alleged in the petition. Since the petitioner has already given birth to a child during first week of September, therefore, the emergency is over and she can be safely deported to her own country.

10. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./W‑8/L Petition dismissed.