NAVEED ZAHEER vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Interior Affairs and 2 others
This matter concerns a constitutional challenge against the Federal Government's decision to place the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) without prior notice or disclosure of reasons. The petitioner, representing a private company, argued that the restriction on his movement was arbitrary, unlawful, and violated his constitutional rights, particularly because no show-cause notice was issued and no inquiry was conducted. The respondents failed to file comments or controvert these allegations. The Court held that the placement of the petitioner's name on the ECL was unjustified as it restricted his right to liberty without due process. The Court emphasized that an individual must be heard before the Federal Government prohibits them from leaving the country, unless public interest dictates otherwise, which was not established here. Consequently, the Court found the action arbitrary and granted the petitioner one-time permission to travel abroad, subject to furnishing a surety bond to the satisfaction of the Court's Nazir, with a condition to return within one month.
- Is the Federal Government required to issue a show-cause notice before placing an individual's name on the Exit Control List?
- Can the placement of an individual's name on the Exit Control List be declared unjustified if no reasons were assigned and no inquiry was conducted?
- Does the failure of the respondent to file comments in a constitutional petition allow the court to accept the petitioner's uncontroverted contentions?
1. ORDER.
2. MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the impugned decision of respondent No 1 contained in the memorandum dated 3rd September 2007 whereby the 'name of the petitioner being representative of Messrs Engineering Consultants International (Pvt.) Limited was placed on Exit Control List.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the name of the petitioner was placed on the Exit Control- List on the basis of the inquiry by the respondent No.2 in connection with the award of the contract for the feasibility study and detailed design of the proposed Karachi Northern By-pass project to the petitioner's company. According to the learned counsel for petitioner no show-cause notice was served' upon the petitioner nor the reasons for placing the name of the petitioner has been assigned therefore, impugned decision is arbitrary, unlawful and against the constitutional provisions affecting the freedom and protection of the petitioner.
4. In support of the above contentions reliance has been placed on the case of Ashfaq Yousuf Tola v.
5. Federation "of Pakistan PLD 2006 Kar. 193, Wajid Shamsul Hassan v: Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617 and Saleem Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 Kar. 177.
6. Mr. Imran Ahmad learned D.A.-G..has candidly stated' that despite of repeated letters addressed to the respondent No.1 comments have not so far been filed.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar.
8. The ground agitated by the petitioner' have not been controverted by the respondent as the comments have not been filed. It is 'ex facie revealed that the ground of placement of the name of the petitioner in the 'Exit Control List were not divulged out. Petitioner was not served with a show- cause notice, he was bound to be heard before passing any order by the Federal Government for prohibiting him to leave Pakistan, unless it was considered in the public interest not to specify the ground. On account of non-specification' of the ground for placing fetters upon the right of movement of the petitioner. No inquiry was conducted by the competent authority, no reason was assigned by the respondent for placing his name on exit control list nor notice or intimation was served upon him.
9. We are therefore, of the view that placement of the name, of the petitioner on Exit Control List was not justified, tantamount to restrict rights of his liberty.
10. On the request of the counsel appearing for the petitioner one time permission is granted to the petitioner to proceed to Abu Dhabi upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000 land upon execution of the bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The petitioner is permitted to proceed 'abroad with a direction to return back within one month. Orders accordingly.
Cited by 3 cases
- NASIR WAHEED vs MINISTRY OF INTERIOR through Secretary and others 2016 MLD 274
- Mst, NASREEN BEGUM and anothers vs MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT 2012 PLD Islamabad 17
- ZIA MOHYUDDIN vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (EMIGRATION) FEDERAL 2010 PLD Lahore 128