P L D 2004 Lahore 478 (PLP)

Munir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner Sher Zaman Khan, Dy. Attorney‑General for Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad Jehangir Badar has through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 prayed that "a fresh direction may kindly be issued to the respondents that they should allow the petitioner to facilitate the order dated 20‑11‑2003 of this Honourable Court so that petitioner may be able to perform Umra & visit U.K. and for that purpose to give at least one time permission for a period of one month."

2. The order referred to by the petitioner dated 20‑11‑2003 was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15406 of 2003 observing that for the deletion of his name from the Exit Control List he should pursue the remedy of representation already invoked by him and insofar as permission for traveling abroad was concerned it was observed that "There are numerous instances where either the Government itself has granted permissions to persons on the Exit Control List or the Court by making orders subject to certain conditions, (as mentioned in the preceding paragraph)." It was thus directed that one time permission for performance of Umra be given to him subject to furnishing bond. On 17‑12‑2003 the Government of Pakistan Interior Division granted onetime permission to the petitioner to go abroad for a period of 30 days from the date of issue of that order. The said order, however, was modified in view of the order passed by this Court in the abovementioned writ petition. It is stated‑by the learned counsel that the, petitioner could not avail the said permission and facility for unavoidable reasons and that the petitioner now wants to go abroad for performance of Umra and to attend Aqiqa function of his nephew. When this case came up before this Court on 10‑2‑2004 notice to the respondents as also the learned Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan was ordered. The respondents are represented today. It is contended by the learned Deputy Attorney‑General that the writ petition is incompetent and misconceived inasmuch as that the same has been instituted without making any application to the respondents for the prayed for permission. It is contended that in the past, as and when the petitioner applied, his request was considered by the Government in accordance with law, he should have in the first instance applied to the Government.

3. There appears merit and substance in the contention of the learned Deputy Attorney‑General inasmuch as the petitioner has traveled abroad in the past as well after the permission was granted by the Government and even on 17‑12‑2003 he was granted permission by the Interior Division of Government of Pakistan, which permission statedly could not be availed by him. He could have applied for permission before instituting the writ petition, which undoubtedly would have received due consideration by the competent authority. It appears that the petitioner has rushed to this Court in haste without first approaching and enabling the competent authority to consider his request and to grant or refuse him the permission. He can even now approach respondent No.1 with his request, which undoubtedly will receive due and earnest consideration. Petition before this Court, which is in the nature of writ of mandamus in the circumstances is premature. It is disposed of accordingly M.H./M-237/L Order accordingly