ANWAR SAIFULLAH KHAN, EX-SENATOR vs PASSPORT & IMMIGRATION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others

ORDER

' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division. Bench of Peshawar High Court, dated 10-12-1997, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the inclusion of his name on the Exit Control List (E.C.L) by the respondents.

2. In seeking leave to appeal Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the action of the respondents in including the name of the petitioner on the E.C.L, besides being arbitrary and discriminatory, is opposed to the principles of natural justice as neither before nor after inclusion of the name of petitioner on the E.C.L., he was given any hearing by, the respondents. The learned counsel further contended that provisions of section 2 of Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 are violative of Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, on the other land, supported the order of the learned High Court and contended that number of Ehtesab References are presently pending against the petitioner, and therefore, Government was justified in placing the name of petitioner on E.C.L. In order to prevent him from leaving the country to avoid facing trial in Ehtesab cases.

4. The learned Bench of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, observed as follows:- "13. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the placing of petitioner's name on the Exit Control List is not violative of any law. It may, however, be added that the petitioner cannot be indefinitely placed on the Exit Control List and if the process of Ehtesab against the petitioner is unduly and unreasonably delayed, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Court again. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."

' The learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court, in arriving at the above conclusion, followed the decision of a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh passed in the case of Miss Naheed Khan v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Karachi 513) in preference to the case of Wajid Shamas- ulHassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) decided by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court. There appears to be lack of unanimity in the views expressed by the learned Judges of the High Court which needs to be resolved through an authoritative pronouncement of this Court.

4. We accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for the following interim relief during pendency of his appeal:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the entry in the Exit Control List showing the name of the petitioner may kindly be suspended to enable him to proceed abroad in connection with his personal engagement during the pendency of above cited case, in the interest of justice."

' We are not inclined to grant interim relief in the terms stated above as, in our view, it would amount to grant of the petition at an interim stage. However, 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.