2005 PLP 1469 (SCMR)
STATE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1469 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | STATE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1469 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1469 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1469 (SCMR) (STATE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus ZULFIQAR AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 14-6-2000 passed in C.P. No.D-301 of 1999).
S. 2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Name of respondent was included in Exit Control List because of his involvement in criminal case
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction allowed the petition on the ground that proceedings in the criminal case had already been quashed by High Court
High Court had rightly observed that matter involved related to liberty of citizens and had to be swiftly disposed of rather than to keep same pending for indefinite period--Supreme Court noted it with serious concern that the Government agencies did not bother even to communicate relevant material to Deputy Attorney-General who represented them before the High Court
In absence of any adequate material and strong reason justifying action by the Authorities, Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by High Court which was neither unfair nor unreasonable nor against the settled principles of law
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against High Court judgment, dated 14-6-2000 allowing Constitutional petition of the respondent against placement of his name on the Exit Control List.
2. Respondent is a businessman. While he was boarding a flight to Jeddah for performing Umrah on 5-11-1998, he was not allowed to board the flight and informed that his name had been placed on Exit Control List as certain F.I.Rs. had been registered against him by Immigration and Passport Headquarters Office. He assailed the impugned action through a writ petition, which has been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that neither any convincing reason was assigned nor any ground put forward for justifying the impugned action. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent was involved in F.I.R. No.2 of 1996 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered by F.I.A. State Bank Circle, Karachi, in respect of which respondent's counsel Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan placed before the High Court a certified copy of a judgment of the High Court quashing the said F.I.R. and the proceedings arising therefrom.
3. We are in complete agreement with the observation of the High Court that such matters relate to liberty of the citizens and have to be swiftly disposed of rather than to keep them pending for indefinite period. It is unfortunate to note that the Government agencies, who are the petitioners before this Court, did not bother even to communicate relevant material to the Deputy Attorney-General, who represented them before the High Court.
4. In the absence of any adequate material and strong reason, justifying the impugned action, we find no ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court which was neither unfair nor unreasonable or against the settled principles of law.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. M.H./S-59/S Petition dismissed. ***