Exit Control List

In holding that a person is a defaulter under the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 there must be a finding made after assessment and adjudicatory proceedings that a demand for sales tax due and payable remains outstanding against that person and is yet to be paid

Petitioner could not be considered to be in default of tax or liabilities in terms of R. 2(d) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 merely because authorities had formed an opinion that he was liable for sales tax fraud for illegally seeking income tax adjustment

On the basis of such opinion, a penalty could not be inflicted on petitioner in the form of curtailing his civil rights and liberties by placing his name on ECL or PCL or PNIL pending determination of the fate of any criminal charge brought against him or adjudicatory proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court declared that placement of petitioner's name on ECL, PCL and/or PNIL was tantamount to colorable exercise of authority in breach of provisions of Passports Act, 1974, Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 and Arts. 4, 9, 10A, 15 & 25 of the Constitution and such actions were of no legal effect

High Court directed Federal Government to ensure that name of petitioner was removed from ECL, PCL and PNIL and no fetters were to be placed on the rights of petitioner to travel on the ground that he was liable for tax fraud, unless it was determined through the adjudicatory process provided under provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 that he was a defaulter

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of placing of his name on Exit Control List / Passport Control List due to his involvement in a criminal case, in which petitioner had been granted bail

Validity

Whenever a power is conferred on Federal Government, it is construed as a power given to Prime Minister and Federal Ministers / Cabinet to be exercised in the name of Federal Government

No approval was granted by Federal Government for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List, as provided by R.22 (1) of Passport Rules, 2021

Inclusion of name of petitioner on Passport Control List violated his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life and freedom of movement, all of which were guaranteed by the Constitution

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from ECL/PNIL/PCL as it was unjustified, illegal, lacked lawful authority and was of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

During the contempt proceedings in a matter before a Single Judge of the High Court, the appellant filed an Intra Court Appeal against the interlocutory order, passed by the Single Judge, whereby the charge of contempt of Court was framed against him

Said Intra Court Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench; said order was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a Criminal Petition, which was dismissed as not pressed

Appellant had neither disclosed the fact of dismissal of first Intra Court Appeal in the instant matter by a Division Bench of the High Court nor disclosed that an appeal against the order was dismissed as not pressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

Neither said facts were mentioned in the instant appeal nor copies of the orders passed by both the Courts were placed on record

Appellant had concealed material facts by not mentioning the orders passed by High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan in earlier round of litigation

Person who seeks equity must approach the Court with clean hands

Admittedly show-cause notice had been withdrawn, warrants of arrest had also been cancelled and only grievance of the appellant was that his name was placed on Exit Control List

When confronted about whether on application to get permission for travelling for Umrah was filed before the Single Judge, counsel for appellant had stated that no formal application was filed in office, rather the same was given Single Judge during the proceedings but no order was passed

Appellant was required to file a proper application in the office for grant of exemption/permission for travelling to perform Umrah but admittedly said procedure had not been adopted

As the contempt proceedings against the appellant were pending, formal show cause notice had been issued; he was bound to appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing under S.17(2) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, thus, placing his name on Exit Control List would not cause any prejudice to him

Intra Court Appeal being not maintainable was dismissed in limine.

Petitioner was residing abroad who had violated terms of contract whereby after completing his PhD from abroad he was to serve for two years in Pakistan

Authorities terminated services of petitioner and his name was included in Exit Control List

Validity

Memorandum in question was coram non judice for not having been issued under the authority of Federal Cabinet

Such Memorandum was liable to be set-aside as it was illegal and irrational and was not supported by provisions of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 read with Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Federal Government was not vested with authority under Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, to place name of a citizen on ECL with full knowledge that such citizen was abroad and effect of placement of his name on ECL would be to prohibit his re-entry in Pakistan

Officials of the office of petitioner were vested with no authority to direct that name of any employee or former employee was placed on ECL

Any recommendation for such purpose was to be considered by Federal Government within the scope of provisions of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Order to such effect was to be passed by Federal Cabinet through an independent application of mind in view of material placed before Federal Cabinet on the basis of grounds mentioned in R.2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Reasons were to be recorded for the exercise of such power after affording a citizen an opportunity to be heard, given that the effect of such order was to fetter right of a citizen to liberty and freedom to travel guaranteed by Arts. 9 and 15 of the Constitution

High Court directed the authorities to remove petitioner's name from ECL

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were family members of CEO of a company working at stock exchange, who was alleged to have embezzled invested amounts of his clients

Names of petitioners were placed on Exit Control List and they were prohibited from going abroad

Validity

Petitioners' case fell in none of the grounds listed in R.2(1) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Dispute between CEO and clients of the company was essentially a private dispute

Petitioners were not directors or shareholders of the company

Case of petitioners did not fall under R.2(1)(b)(d) & (e) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

None of the petitioners was nominated by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in Reference filed before Accountability Court and no role whatsoever was attributed to them

Benamidar accused as defined in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, did not incur any penal liability who was entitled to show cause notice by Accountability Court during trial to afford opportunity to explain sources of income

If Benamidar failed to satisfy Accountability Court, the property was liable to be forfeited

High Court set aside order of placing names of petitioners on Exit Control List as there was no cogent or substantive reason to place names of petitioners on Exit Control List

Mere relationship of petitioners with CEO of the company was not a valid legal basis

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Dispensation underlying in provisions of Ss. 337, 338 & 339, Cr.P.C. were incorporated in S. 26 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, with a few modifications befitting the law

Chairman NAB had substituted District Public Prosecutor for the purpose

Provision of S. 26 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, did not put a bar on travel of a person who had accepted tender of pardon

All that a person having accepted pardon was required to do was to present himself for examination by Magistrate for recording his pela first and then as a witness in subsequent trial

Petitioner had complied with first requirement and his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before Magistrate

Necessity to take action against person who had accepted pardon, as envisaged by S. 26(f) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, would arise only when Chairman NAB certified that he had willfully concealed anything essential or given false evidence through willful or reckless misstatement or not complied with the conditions on which tender was made

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was willful defaulter of different financial institutions against whom decrees were passed by Banking Courts and he had also been declared as Proclaimed Offender

Petitioner sought removal of his name from Exit Control List

Validity

Held, there was every likelihood that petitioner would leave the country, if his name was ordered to be removed from Exit Control List, just to save his skin from clutches of law

Fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normal rights granted by procedural as also substantive law

Petitioner neither joined legal proceedings nor made appearance before relevant Courts and proceedings as provided under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had already been initiated declaring him as proclaimed offender

Judicial discretion could not be exercised in favour of a person who was fugitive from law

Abscondence of petitioner disentitled him to ask for any relief which was discretionary

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was willful defaulter of different financial institutions against whom decrees were passed by Banking Courts and he had also been declared as proclaimed offender

Petitioner sought removal of his names from Exit Control List

Validity

Petitioner did not appear before Banking Courts to face criminal complaints against him under S.20 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and was a Proclaimed Offender

High Court declined to come to aid of a person who was a fugitive from law

High Court directed the petitioner to first surrender before Trial Courts and if those Courts decided to exempt his personal appearance, the petitioner would exhaust remedy of review provided by S. 3 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was willful defaulter of different financial institutions against whom decrees were passed by Banking Courts and he had also been declared as proclaimed offender

Petitioner sought removal of his names from Exit Control List

Validity

Petitioner did not appear before Banking Courts to face criminal complaints against him under S.20 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and was a Proclaimed Offender

High Court declined to come to aid of a person who was a fugitive from law

High Court directed the petitioner to first surrender before Trial Courts and if those Courts decided to exempt his personal appearance, the petitioner would exhaust remedy of review provided by section 3 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was willful defaulter of different financial institutions against whom decrees were passed by Banking Courts and he had also been declared as Proclaimed Offender

Petitioner sought removal of his name from Exit Control List

Validity

Held, there was every likelihood that petitioner would leave the country, if his name was ordered to be removed from Exit Control List, just to save his skin from clutches of law

Fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normal rights granted by procedural as also substantive law

Petitioner neither joined legal proceedings nor made appearance before relevant Courts and proceedings as provided under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had already been initiated declaring him as proclaimed offender

Judicial discretion could not be exercised in favour of a person who was fugitive from law

Abscondence of petitioner disentitled him to ask for any relief which was discretionary

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where order of putting name of a person on Exit Control List is passed without providing opportunity of hearing to him and without application of its own independent mind by Government and such order is a non-speaking order

High Court directed to remove the name of said person from Exit Control List.

Mere pendency of an inquiry with National Accountability Bureau did not provide sufficient material or justification for keeping name of petitioner in Exit Control List

No plausible reasons were assigned by authorities while placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List

High Court set aside order in question as same was passed in haste and in mechanical manner on instructions of National Accountability Bureau

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of placing of his name on Exit Control List by authorities due to inquiry by National Accountability Bureau

Validity

National Accountability Bureau had every right to inquire into offences which could have been committed under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Such inquiries and investigations could not go for an indefinite period and prevent a person's Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel abroad

Petitioner was subject to various NAB inquiries/investigations for over 2-½ years and till no reference was filed against him

Even as per NAB's own SOP, inquiry and investigation should have been completed well before time spent against petitioner and reference should have been filed if evidence before NAB justified such filing of reference under S.18(g) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

High Court set aside memorandum and directed Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, to remove the name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Application was Chief Executive of company during 1-9-2003 to 9-10-2006 who filed application for removal of his name from Exit Control List during pendency of application for winding-up company

Validity

High Court directed to put names on Exit Control List until directors and officials of company executed heavy amount of surety bonds to satisfaction of High Court with undertaking that whenever such persons were required, they would attend High Court

Petitioner was ready to submit heavy bond as well as undertaking to appear before High Court as and when required

Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of criminal complaint wherein role attributed to petitioner was of abetment under S. 109, P.P.C.

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan had sent names of 8 persons out of 14 and person who obtained financial facility from company under liquidation had repaid all amount with profit

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Application was allowed accordingly.

Applicant was Chief Executive of company during 01-09-2003 to 09-10-2006 who filed application for removal of his name from Exit Control List during pendency of application for winding-up of company

Validity

High Court directed to put names on Exit Control List until directors and officials of company executed heavy amount of surety bonds to the satisfaction of High Court with undertaking that whenever such persons were required, they would attend High Court

Petitioner was ready to submit heavy bonds as well as undertaking to appear before High Court as and when required

Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of criminal complaint where role attributed to petitioner was of abetment under S. 109, P.P.C.

Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan had sent names of 8 persons out of 14 and person who obtained financial facility from company under liquidation had repaid all amount with profit

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Application was allowed accordingly.

Immunity from trial and punishment was not absolute and was only with respect to courts of receiving State and 'diplomatic agent' could be tried for the offence in his country

No 'bar or immunity' existed regarding investigation of criminal offence

'Diplomatic Agent' could be interviewed by investigating agency in receiving State, however, immunity existed from arrest and detention

Diplomatic Agent was to be treated with dignity and these aspects had to be kept in view while conducting investigation of the matter

Courts generally refrained from entering domain of Executive and take decisions on its behalf

In exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, courts could examine validity of executive decisions on touchstone of accepted parameters

Federal Government, under provisions of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 could place name of any person on Exit Control List on orders of the High Court

Matter, in the present case, was already pending before competent authority, i.e., Federal Government and it was just and proper that issue of placement of name of respondent in the Exist Control List be decided by it

High Court directed the Federal Government to decide application for placement of name of respondent on Exit Control List in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Federal Government is not absolved of its duty at least to mention reasons for not specifying grounds for action under S.2(1) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981.

Memorandum in question did not specify any reason for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List but in view of S.2(1)(a) to (g) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, circumstances and grounds were provided which could be made basis for placing anybody's name on Exit Control List

None of such considerations were considered by Federal Government by placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List

Terms of bond got furnished by "SUPARCO" at the best could have been enforced but authorities had no jurisdiction to deny fundamental right of petitioner enshrined under Arts.14 & 15 of the Constitution

In absence of any reasonable restrictions imposed by law as envisaged under Arts. 14 & 15 of the Constitution, the authorities had in fact acted illegally by denying constitutional right of petitioner

If at all, the parent department of petitioner had any grievance, it could have approached court of law and enforced agreement of bond or claim any relief under civil litigation

High Court declared placing of petitioner's name in Exit Control List without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed under circumstances.

Petitioner was an actress/model and her name was placed on Exit Control List without intimating her as she was facing a charge of currency smuggling

Plea raised by authorities was that alternate remedy of appeal was available to petitioner and that petitioner could abscond

Validity

Petitioner was not informed that she was on Exit Control List and what right of appeal she could have

Plea of alternate remedy was not sustainable where the concerned person was not aware of that remedy and even otherwise due to lack of reasons for her inclusion in Exit Control List could not meaningfully challenge that inclusion

High Court observed that question of absconsion should have been pursued at the time when petitioner sought bail and again at the time when she sought return of her passport rather than at the stage of assailing inclusion of name in Exit Control List

On neither occasion authorities deemed it appropriate to move appeal against such decisions all the way to Supreme Court in respect of either the grant of bail or return of passport, despite knowing that the object of its return was for travelling for business and to see her ailing mother

Authorities did not seek cancellation of bail of petitioner on the grounds that there was a serious risk of her absconding

High Court set aside the memorandum placing her on exit control list as the same was issued without lawful authority

Petitioner had no notice of said memorandum, which was not based on a speaking order and such was the requirement under S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, and she was deprived of her right to effectively move appeal against the same

Memorandum was issued contrary to Exit Control List Policy relied upon by Federal Government which did not include the offence of smuggling

High Court directed Federal Government to immediately remove the name of petitioner from Exit Control List and allow her to travel abroad, if she so desired

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Before making an order for placing of a person's name on Exit Control List, it is not necessary under S. 2(2) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 for Federal Government to afford an opportunity of showing cause to person whose name is to be placed on Exit Control List

Such provision cannot be construed as an open licence to authorities to place any citizen's name on Exit Control List without affording an opportunity of hearing to person concerned

Opportunity of hearing is an essential postulate of due process recognized in Arts. 2-A, 4 & 10-A of the Constitution.

Petitioner was an accused facing inquiry/investigation before National Accountability Bureau on allegation of corruption and corrupt practices where amount involved was Rs. 21 million

Federal Government placed name of petitioner on Exit Control List on asking of National Accountability Bureau

Validity

Mere fact that an inquiry/ investigation was being conducted by National Accountability Bureau or any other agency against petitioner was not by itself a sufficient reason to place his name on Exit Control List

Even pendency of criminal proceedings including proceedings before Accountability Court (without an order or a request from Court for curtailing an accused's freedom to travel abroad) was not a sufficient ground to place name of a citizen on Exit Control List

Petitioner was alleged to have caused loss of Rs. 21 million by misusing his authority and in terms of National Accountability Bureau's own Standard Operating Procedure, case of petitioner was a low priority case, although provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 have not placed any impediment before National Accountability Bureau to take cognizance of cases where loss caused to exchequer was less than Rs. 100 million as a consequence of corruption, corrupt practice or misuse of authority (as long as requisite approvals from Chairman National Accountability Bureau were obtained) yet authorities should have taken into account Standard Operating Procedure of National Accountability Bureau before restricting Fundamental Right of petitioner to travel abroad

Federal Government should have also taken into account that after commencement of inquiry against petitioner he had proceeded abroad on three occasions and returned to Pakistan

High Court directed Federal Government to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List and had set aside order in question

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Phrase "subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in public interest" expressly used by makers of the Constitution, had to be tested on the touchstone of the grounds described under R. 2 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010, to restrict or deprive a person of Fundamental Rights of freedom of movement

If the action of abridging right of freedom of movement could not be so justified then it was tantamount to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and without lawful authority

Federal Government, by way of policy, had prescribed parameters for placing names on Exit Control List

Valid and lawful justification did not exist to deny Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 & 15 of the Constitution

Memorandum in question was declared unconstitutional and refusal on the part of Federal Government to remove names of petitioners from 'Exit Control List', was arbitrary, illegal and without lawful authority and justification

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was Chairman of Trust Investment Bank Ltd. and a criminal case alleging criminal breach of trust to the extent of Rs. 396.546 million was registered and his name was placed on Exit Control List

Validity

To travel abroad was a fundamental right of a person enshrined in the Constitution but no fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution was absolute

State was empowered to impose certain 'reasonable' restrictions to regulate such right

No bar existed in exercising such right but interest of public at large was to be guarded as public policy

Prima facie the petitioner was instrumental in illegally misappropriating a large amount of public money and was not ready to return the same

High Court, in order to safeguard interest of public, declined to interfere in the action taken against him by placing his name on Exit Control List

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was government official alleged to have embezzled huge amount from public funds and was facing criminal investigation

Petitioner sought removal of her name from Exit Control List on the plea that she had to attend marriage ceremony of her daughter in Canada

Validity

Grounds for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List were not communicated to her

If there was any flaw in the action, no prejudice was shown to have been caused to petitioner because she had a right of filing review petition before competent authority

Without availing remedy of review, Constitutional petition before High Court was not maintainable

High Court declined to issue direction for removal of name of petitioner from Exit Control List during pendency of criminal case involving embezzlement of huge public exchequer

Petitioner was required for investigation and recovery purposes, as she was enlarged on ad-interim pre-arrest bail

Petitioner failed to make out any valid ground involving urgency of emergent nature to remove her name from Exit Control List

Authorities placed name of petitioner on Exit Control List after following proper procedure and it could not be declared to have been issued without jurisdiction or any authority

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Names of petitioners were entered in Exit Control List on the request of National Accountability Bureau, treating them as 'flight risk' without issuing show cause or speaking explanation

Memorandum through which names of petitioners were placed on ECL neither assigned any reason for doing so and appeared to have been issued in a mechanical manner

Validity

Right of free movement included right of travelling abroad subject to reasonable restriction, and the same was guaranteed under Art.15 of the Constitution

In case such right was to be curtailed by applying reasonable restriction, such power must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith

Order whereby such restriction was imposed should not be passed mechanically on the request of any Ministry or department unless against public interest

Such order must have detailed reason and reflected application of mind

High Court directed the authorities to remove names of petitioners from Exit Control List

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that he had been acquitted from courts of competent jurisdiction in cases got registered by Customs department for storing huge quantities of smuggled items

Validity

Cause assigned for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List was not reasonable for curtailing liberty of a citizen to travel abroad

Such liberty could be curtailed if it was shown that foreign visit of petitioner endangered security of the state and/or was against public interest

No such material was available on record to justify action of authorities

Provisions of Arts. 4, 9. 15 & 25 of the Constitution made it vivid that every citizen had the liberty to travel abroad and enter into Pakistan unless he was precluded under the law made in public interest

Restraining order passed by authorities under S.2(3) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, was to be made in public interest and validity must be judged on the touchstone of reasonableness and fairness

Mere pendency of criminal or civil litigation against a citizen was no ground to deny freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution to travel within or out of Pakistan

High Court directed the authorities to remove the name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Names of such members/petitioners were placed on the Exit Control List by the Federal Government on the request of Federal Investigation Agency

Petitioners filed constitutional petition before the High Court for removal of their names from the Exit Control List by contending that the petition was maintainable as alternate remedy of review under S.3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 had become redundant

Validity

Remedy of review, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, had become illusory and redundant

Review application under S.3 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, would be an exercise in futility considering that the petitioners had been deprived of their fundamental rights guaranteed in Part II, Chap.1 of the Constitution

Any action without sufficient cause depriving or restricting liberty of a citizen could not be taken and the State must jealously safeguard the liberty of its individuals, therefore, the petitioners were not debarred from approaching the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement of their fundamental rights

Facts of the present case clearly indicated that there was no lawful reason, justification or ground available at present stage to retain the names of the petitioners on the Exit Control List or to deny them their fundamental right of freedom of movement

Even otherwise, the questions raised in the present constitutional petition involved interpretation of the Constitution and enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioners in the context of S.2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 and the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Remedy of review, in such circumstances, did not constitute adequate remedy for the purpose of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.

Authorities could not place name of a person on Exit Control List which amounted to restrict freedom of his movement in mechanical manner, without applying their own mind and without issuing any reason

Name of petitioner was placed on Exit Control List by authorities in an arbitrary and purely mechanical manner without applying their own mind

Order passed by authorities was not a speaking order without showing/disclosing basis of its intention of exercising powers under S. 2(3) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Action of authorities violated valuable Fundamental Rights of petitioner as guaranteed by the Constitution and could not be sustained

Federal Board of Revenue or Inland Revenue department did not recommend for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List and all liabilities against petitioner were pending before High Court

Action of authorities in placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List was without any valid reason and in violation of Fundamental Rights

High Court directed the authorities to remove/delete name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Grievance of petitioner was that his name had been placed on Exit Control List without any justification and he had been offloaded at the time when he was going to perform Hajj

Validity

Name of petitioner was placed on Exit Control List by Ministry of Interior in arbitrary and mechanical manner only on the instruction of NAB, without applying its own mind, without passing any speaking order and without disclosing basis of its intention of exercising powers under S.2(3) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Such act on the part of government, which was not done fairly, reasonably or in good faith had violated not only valuable fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 & 15 of the Constitution but also prohibited petitioner from performing Hajj, which was one of the five fundamental religious obligations in Islam

High Court declared actions on the part of authorities in placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List, prohibiting him from travelling abroad and offloading him from Hajj flight, as arbitrary, void ab initio and without jurisdiction

High Court imposed cost of Rs.100,000/- on government which was to be recovered from delinquent officer(s) out of his/their personal account and not from national exchequer and to be paid to petitioner as compensatory cost within 30 days

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioner was that despite his acquittal from criminal case, authorities had placed his name on Exit Control List

Validity

Name of petitioner was placed by authorities in arbitrary and mechanical manner without applying their own mind

Despite repeated directions and orders of High Court nothing had been placed on record by authorities to substantiate that there existed any valid or justiciable ground for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List or for prohibiting him from travelling abroad

If petitioner as, in the present case, was involved in offence of connivance/abetement and wrongful loss to bank and corresponding wrongful gain to him, in the said case petitioner had already been acquitted under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Complainant bank did not file appeal against acquittal of petitioner, hence acquittal order had attained finality

High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from Exit Control List forthwith

High Court further directed the official concerned to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation from his own account to petitioner for illegally and wrongfully placing his name on Exit Control List

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioner was that authorities had placed his name on Exit Control List and denied him permission to travel abroad for treatment of his ailing son

Validity

Right to travel abroad of a citizen of Pakistan was a fundamental right

Petitioner had been denied such right ostensibly on the ground of his being a loan defaulter

High Court allowed one time permission to petitioner to travel abroad subject to furnishing of third party surety, as his son was seriously ill

Application was allowed accordingly.