SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- This Constitutional petition filed by petitioner Mian Tahir Jehangir seeks removal of his name from the Exit Control List.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that petitioner is business man and at one point of time was the Managing Director of M/s. Halla Spinning Mills Ltd., which Stands wound up. In addition thereto, petitioner also claims to be the Managing Director of two other companies which are currently engaged in their respective business and in that context; petitioner is required to travel abroad.
Apparently, petitioner's name was placed on the ECL way back in January, 2000 in consequence of claim with reference to aforesaid M/s. Halla Spinning Mills Ltd.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney General and gone through the history of litigation and facts of the instant case.
4. It is being canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a citizen. Of Pakistan having fundamental and inalienable right of travelling abroad as guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Adds that said right has been curtailed unilaterally and respondents functionaries of the State have not exercised their discretion independently and judicially by acting on extraneous advice. Further asserts that petitioner is not a flight risk having already travelled abroad with the prior permission of the respondents on several occasions and returned back to Pakistan. To substantiate, his assertions, relies on (PLD 1987 SC 504) Government of Pakistan and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan, (PLD 1997 Lahore 617), Wajid Shamas-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan, (PLD 1999 Lahore 459), Munawar Ali Sherazi v.
Federation of Pakistan and others and (PLJ 1999 Lahore 955), Major (Retired) Mir Mazhar Qayyum v.
Federation of Pakistan and (PLD 1999 Lahore 372), Malik Mushtaq Awan v. Government of Pakistan and others.
5. Whereas, learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan by controverting the Contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is a rather large claim of the IDBP (Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan) against M/s. Halla Spinning Mills which is allegedly guaranteed by the petitioner and in fact a request of the IDBP routed through the State Bank of Pakistan culminated in placing of the petitioner's name bn the ECL. And that discretion has been exercised justly and fairly which cannot be interfered with through the invocation of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. There is no escape from the fact that freedom of movement and right to travel abroad is a fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan as enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Manifestly, every citizen has the liberty to go abroad and to re-enter Pakistan unless precluded from doing so under some law made in the public interest. Apparently, the sole basis for placing petitioner's name on the ECL is the alleged claim of IDBP against the petitioner, which is stated to be sub judice. In this context, it is a settled law that even registration of criminal case is not a sufficient ground for placing the name of an individual on the ECL as was held by this Court in the case reported as PLD 1997 Lahore 617 (ibid), In another, judgment reported as PLJ 1999 Lahore 955 (ibid), it was held that even pendency of departmental inquiry was not a valid ground for placing the name of a person on the ECL. Hence, I am not persuaded to hold that merely because petitioner is involved in civil litigation, his name should automatically be placed on the ECL particularly when the Court seized of the Its has not passed any specific order in that regard. The Ministry of Interior to the Government of Pakistan appears to have acted mechanically on the request of the IDBP without applying its own independent mind in the exercise of discretion by placing the name of the petitioner oh the ECL. Furthermore, it has been noticed that even after placement of petitioner's name-on the ECL and till the filing of the instant petition before this Court, petitioner- was granted permission by the respondents to travel abroad on no less than on 13 occasions, and each time, petitioner returned back to Pakistan, It is pertinent to point out that for some of the said occasions, referred to above, petitioner was included by the. Federal Government itself as one of the Members of the Pakistani trade delegations accompanying the President, Prime Minister of Pakistan and Federal Ministers from time to time.
7. For the foregoing facts and reasons, it is clear and obvious that impugned action is without any legal and factual basis, hence, cannot sustain in law. Consequently, by accepting this Writ Petition, I direct that name of the petitioner shall be removed from the ECL forthwith.
Petition accepted in the term reflected ibid.