1969 PLP 141 (SCMR)

Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 4th November 1968. FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore dismissing a writ petition. The facts briefly are as follows :‑ The petitioner, Abdur Rashid, who is a Pakistani national, was carrying on an import and export business at Zahidan (Iran) under the name and style of "Bazargani Abdul Rashid, Zahidan". His brother, Muhammad Tufail, also carried on business there under the name of "Muhammad Tufail & Brothers". In December 1963, when Tufail went to Zahidan, Pakistani currency of the value of Rs. 1,20,000 was recovered from his possession. A case was duly registered against him by the Iranian Authorities but as the case did not fall within the purview of the Iranian Foreign Exchange Control Regulation, the seized amount was returned to Tufail. His younger brother, Abdur Rashid (the present petitioner) was also taken into custody by the said authorities for abetting his brother in the commission of the alleged offence but he was also discharged. Because of his complicity in the afore said smuggling case Abdur Rashid was considered to be an extremely undesirable person to stay abroad and, therefore, it was decided to restrict the validity of his passport. 1n the first week of July 1967, under the orders of Pakistan Consul at Zahidan Abdur Rashid deposited his passport in the Consul's office. After a couple of months he was informed by the Consul that the Government of Pakistan had decided that he should be asked to go back to Pakistan. As he did not receive any reply to his representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, for withdrawal of the order impounding his passport, he moved a writ in the High Court for restoration of his passport. In the said petition he deliberately suppressed the fact that his stay in Zahidan was restricted due to his complicity in the alleged smuggling case. The High Court, therefore, took the view that as he had not come with clean hands he was not entitled to any discretionary relief. Further, it was held that the action taken against the petitioner was not in contravention of section 6 of the Passport Act, 1920, and that the Consul at Zahidan had authority to determine whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the stay of the petitioner in Iran was desirable or not. The High Court also expressed doubt if it could issue a writ to the Consul at Zahidan. For the above reasons, it dismissed the writ petition in limine. The learned counsel attempted to raise a number of legal points in this case. But in view of the fact that he did not come before the High Court with clean hands we did not allow him to do so. We are satisfied that the petitioner did not state all the relevant facts before the High Court; that he deliberately suppressed the facts that he had been arrested by the Iranian Authorities for abetting his brother in a smuggling case and that for that reason he was considered an undesirable person. In these circumstances, the High Court rightly held that he was not entitled to get any relief in the writ jurisdiction. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused