Pakistan Case Law
2006 PLD Karachi 193

ASHFAQ YOUSUF TOLA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control; Islamabad

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 PLD Karachi 193
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No,D-1389 of 2005
Date2005-12-13
Judge(s)Sabihuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Ather Saeed
Resultpetition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the removal of the petitioner's name from the Exit Control List (ECL). The core legal question concerned whether the continued retention of the petitioner's name on the ECL was justified after the underlying dispute before the National Accountability Bureau was settled. The Court held that the placement and continuation of a person's name on the ECL without valid justification and without providing an opportunity of being heard constitutes a serious inroad on personal liberty. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Government's power to restrict movement through the ECL is subject to well-established limits, requiring an opportunity of hearing unless public interest dictates otherwise, and such restrictions cannot persist indefinitely after the resolution of underlying allegations. The petition was consequently allowed and the respondents were directed to remove the petitioner's name from the ECL forthwith.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the placement of a person's name on the Exit Control List without a hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a person's name remain on the Exit Control List indefinitely after the settlement of disputes before the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Does placing a person's name on the Exit Control List amount to an unconstitutional inroad on liberty when no criminal allegations subsist?
Exit Control Listfundamental rightsright to movementpersonal libertyNational Accountability Bureauconstitutional petition

ORDER

1. ' Learned counsel for petitioner states that the name of the petitioner was placed on the exit control list on 19th July, 1999 on account of certain allegations against him which formed the subject- matter of a reference filed before the NAB. According to the learned counsel however, apparently he addressed several letters/notices to the authorities but no order recalling the same was passed.

2. On the contrary through a letter dated 25-4-2002 his request for doing so on 18-2-2002 was regretted. While the petitioner kept on moving the authorities the only response he got was in the form of a letter dated 25-4-2004 regretting his request.

3. Learned counsel asserted that after settlement of the dispute with NAB there could be no conceivable justification for placing fetters upon his right of movement. Having failed to obtain redress from the concerned quarters he moved this Court and notices were issued to respondents after admitting the petition on 26-10-2005. It is well-established that though the power to prohibit a person from leaving Pakistan is available to the Federal. Government such power is subject to well- established limits. Normally a person is bound to be heard before passing of the order unless it is considered in the public interest not to specify grounds. In the instant case there appears to be no declaration that failure to assign grounds was based on any consideration of public interest.

4. Learned standing Counsel who had appeared on the last date of hearing requested for two weeks time to obtain instructions but states that despite having addressed letter to the concerned officers no response has been received. The petitioner has admitted that at one time there were certain allegations against him which could amount to offence under the Accountability Act but the matter was amicably settled about four years ago and there is no allegation of any criminal offence against him. This contention goes un-rebutted. We are therefore of the view that placement of the petitioner's name on the ECL amounts to a serious inroad on his liberty and it is directed that his name should be removed forthwith from the ECL. The petition is allowed.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.