JEHANGIR BADAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 it is prayed that "the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Exit Control List and restriction imposed on his traveling abroad by the respondents may kindly be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is also prayed that petitioner may be granted permission to visit abroad." Alongwith the petition and application (C.M. No.2 of 2004) has been moved that the petitioner may, be granted onetime permission to go aboard, for at least a period of 8 weeks.

2. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent has submitted parawise comments to oppose the petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been invited by Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, House of Lords Westminster, London for the launching of the book authored by the petitioner. Reference in this context has been made to letter dated 2 nd of March, 2004. According to the petitioner he applied to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan vide his request dated 15‑3‑2004 that onetime permission may be granted despite his name being in E.C.L (Exit Control List): The learned counsel for the petitioner makes reference to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, that the petitioner has the right to travel, to leave the country and to return. Previous instances have also been cited to show that the petitioner and other persons whose cases were pending, were granted permissions by the Government and the Courts to go abroad. The learned Standing counsel for the Federation while opposing such a request of the petitioner contends that his absence is likely to delay the trial of the case pending against him before the NAB Court and that since the application of the petitioner is still pending before respondents No.2, some more time may be given to decide the same. He has made reference to Anwar Saifullah Khan, Ex‑Senator v. Passport and Immigration. Officer, Government of Pakistan and 3 others (1998 SCMR 1343) to show that due to lack of unanimity in the views expressed by the High Courts on point, the leave was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and that interim relief was not granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case.

4. The respective contentions of the learned counsel have been considered. It may be noted that in the past as well the petitioner had to approach this Court qua the inclusion of his name in the Exit Control List and for permission to got to Saudi Arabia for the performance of Umra. Writ Petition No. 15406 of 2003 was filed by him for that purpose. The said petition was disposed of on 20‑11‑2003 taking the view that "Memorandum dated 18‑5‑2000 placed on record with the parawise comments shows that the name of the petitioner was placed on the Exit Control List under section 2 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 against whom undisputedly National Accountability Bureau references are pending. The said Ordinance provides for a review/representation to the Federal Government qua any order passed under section 2 of the Ordinance. The petitioner indeed has made such a representation dated 26‑6‑2003 seeking the deletion of his name from the Exit Control List. He should pursue that remedy invoked by him."

He was granted onetime permission for the performance of Umra, which, however, was not availed by him due to certain circumstances. Undisputedly the representation so filed by him, despite reminders has remained undecided till date. It was expected that the representation should have been decided in accordance with law during this longtime. It is hoped that attention will be paid by the respondents to this aspect of the matter for decision of the representation expeditiously, as procrastination will not serve the ends of justice.

5. Writ Petition No.4503 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner that since the petitioner could not avail onetime permission granted by this Court a fresh direction be issued to the respondents for permission to perform Umra and to visit United Kingdom. The said petition was, however, dismissed by this Court on 13‑2‑2004 that before instituting the writ petition, the petitioner could have applied to the respondents for such a permission.

Now, he has filed this petition in the background that the petitioner had an invitation from Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, House of Lords Westminster, London, which reads as follows:‑

"I am delighted that you have written a book which is a great achievement. I would like to host a debate and launch your book from the House of Lords at a mutually agreeable date in the near future. If you like the proposition then do let me know so that necessary arrangements for the book launch can be made, at the time to your next visit to the U.K."

The petitioner considers that such invitation "from the House of Lords is not only honour for the petitioner but also honour for the country" he thus applied for onetime permission to visit United Kingdom, which application has remained undecided so far.

Suffice it to observe that despite pendency of the reference against him the petitioner had in the past been granted the permissions to go abroad by the Government itself, which was availed by him twice anti he returned within the stipulated period. On my asking it is informed that besides other near relations, the petitioner has three children who are acquiring education from the institutions in Lahore. In such circumstances, there is apparently no possibility of his absconsion rather the two permission and opportunities availed by him would show that he would return if so allowed to go abroad. The apprehension of the learned Standing Counsel for the Federation that this way the decision in the reference is likely to be delayed can be taken care of by restricting the duration of the stay of the petitioner abroad and his undertaking not to prolong the proceedings of the same. Even in the precedent cited by him, 1998 SCMR 1343, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court seeking permission to go abroad if, during pendency of the appeal, he plans to proceed abroad in connection with his business engagements." It shown that in an appropriate case the Court could grant permission : despite pendency of the matter. Thus, considering all these aspects I am IR persuaded that the petitioner should be granted onetime permission to visit United Kingdom for 20 days commencing from 20th April, 2004 to 10 th May, 2004. This is subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, ensuring and undertaking his return within the stipulated period.

The petition as also the application stand disposed of with above observations and in the above terms.

M.H./M‑238/L Order accordingly.