SHARIQ IMRAN KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. The petitioner who is a citizen of Pakistan having N.I.C. No.517‑90‑012068 and holder of Pakistani Passport No.LA 002423 issued on 23rd May, 2001 by the Counsellor, Embassy of Pakistan in Muscat after expiry of his previously held Passport No.E‑321846 issued on 30th September, 1997 by the IIIrd Secretary, Nigh Commission for Pakistan, London, U.K. has filed this petition calling in question inclusion of his name in Exit Control List (ECL) and prayed for‑the following reliefs:‑‑

2. "(a) Declare that the impugned order dated 19th October, 2002 passed by the respondent No.1 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and to restrain the respondent No.1 from giving‑effect to the same;

(b) grant costs of the petition, and

(c) grant such other relief(s) as this Honourable Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a qualified Chartered Accountant and for several years has been working in an Executive Group based at Oman known as Free Trade Co. which has a number of ventures worldwide, including operations at places in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, U.K. Philippines, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh, Lebanon and Yemen. The said Free Trade Co. also owns or controls BizNas. Com Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited in Pakistan, BizNas (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom and BizNas FZC, Sharjah, Airport Free Zone. The petitioner is a Director in all the three BizNas Companies and is required to travel extensively on short notice and in fact, during last six months, the petitioner has made not less than 21 short trips of various destinations in the Middle East. A summary of such visits has been filed as Annexure ' B' to the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan/respondent No.2, name of the petitioner has been included illegally, unlawfully, without any `lawful authority and in violation of Articles 2‑A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution in the Exit Control List (ECL) though no criminal proceedings of any kind are pending against the petitioner. In response to the notices issued to the respondents, parawise comments were filed only by respondent No.2 stating therein that the petitioner is carrying on unlawful business of collecting money from innocent public fraudulently as the BizNas Co. Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited was incorporated with main objective of designing and developing computer software but in fact it is carrying on unlawful business. It was further stated that respondent No.2 has already filed a winding up Petition No. J. Miscellaneous No.55 of 2002 in the High Court of Sindh under the Companies Act. However, it was no where pleaded that any criminal case has been registered against the petitioner or he is facing any trial on the charges of the alleged fraud and corruption.

4. Despite time having been granted no comments have been filed on behalf of Federation of Pakistan and the learned D.A.‑G. in order to defend the impugned order dated 19‑10‑2002 has mainly relied upon the comments filed by respondent No.2

5. In support of his case, Munir A. Malik learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that in view of the above stated factual and legal aspects of the matter the impugned order is violative of the Constitutional guarantees available to a citizen of Pakistan. In support of the arguments that restriction on the movement of the petitioner is violative of the provisions of Articles, 4, 9 and 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Saleem Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1999 Karachi 177; Baber Khan Ghori and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1999 Karachi 402 and Wajid Shamsul Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lahore 617.

6. During his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner also made a categorical statement that the petitioner is ready to furnish such surety or security as desired by respondent No.2 to ensure his return to Pakistan and to appear before the authority (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan) as and when required by the authority on a notice to him through his counsel ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing. Learned D.A.‑G. and Mr. Agha Faqir Muhammad learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed to the grant of the prayer of the petitioner and placed reliance on the case of Ms. Naheed Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1997 Karachi 513. However, in view of the above referred offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek further instructions.

7. On 23rd December, 2002 statement in writing signed by Tahir Mahmood, Additional Registrar of Companies, Company Registration Office Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Karachi and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has been filed which is taken on record and reproduced as below:‑‑

8. "Statement on behalf of the respondent No.2 (SECP).

9. The petitioner be directed to appear before the Authority (SECP) if and when required by the Authority (SECP) on a notice to the petitioner through his counsel ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, subject to solvent security of Rs.1,000,000 (Rupees One Million only) to be given to the High Court to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court.

10. (Sd.)

11. Tahir Mahmood,

12. Additional Registrar of Companies.

13. Company Registration Office,

14. Securities and Exchange

15. Commission of Pakistan, Karachi.

16. For respondent No.2

17. Additional Registrar of Companies,

18. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.

19. (Sd.)

20. Advocate for the respondent No.2.

21. Karachi

22. Dated: December 23rd, 2002."

23. Without dilating upon the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that in view of the offer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in response to that offer the very purpose of filing of this petition stands served and the ends of justice would meet if this petition is disposed of on the basis of the above referred statement of respondent No.2. It is, therefore, ordered that in case the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall have to furnish solvent security in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees One Million Only) to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court and execute an undertaking in writing to appear before the Authority (SECP) if and when required by the authority (SECP) on a notice to the petitioner through his counsel ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing.

24. Petition stands disposed of accordingly alongwith listed application, with no order as to costs.

25. M.H./S‑305/K Order accordingly.