Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.--The learned counsel for the petitioner has called in question the impugned order dated 23.08.2006 whereby removal of petitioner's name from Exit Control List was declined. According to him no cogent reason has been offered to decline the deletion of petitioner's name from Exit Control List. The petitioner was involved in three references bearing Reference No, 10 of 2003, Reference No, 34 of 2004, Reference No, 43 of 2001 and an inquiry pertaining to National Motors Loan. Pre-bargaining of the petitioner in the above mentioned references was allowed by the Chairman, NAB and subsequently approved by the competent Court vide order dated 06.10.2004 and thereafter he was directed to be released by the learned trial Court. In pursuance of the order of the learned trial Court the petitioner was released. Likewise since petitioner had cleared all his financial liabilities NAB authorities expressed that they had no objection to any transaction by the petitioner in relation to his properties. After obtaining the NOC from the NAB the petitioner approached the respondents authorities for the deletion/removal of his name from the Exit Control List. Since the petitioner failed to receive any response from the NAB Authorities he filed a Writ Petition No, 18279/2005 which was disposed of with a direction to file a fresh representation to the competent authority who will pass an appropriate orders.
2. Pursuant to the above order, a representation was filed which was disallowed by the impugned order.
3. Rana Naeem Sarwar, Addl. P.G. had appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that Inquiries No, 1/9/HQ/60/NAB/P-investigation, 1/61/HQ/236/NAB authorized on 04.06.2007 and another Inquiry No, 1/9/HQ/327/NAB/P authorized on 03.03.2006 are pending before the NAB Authorities and in the above inquiries/investigation Rs, 43.6, 6.2 and 14 millions are involved.
4. We have gone through the impugned order according to which request of the petitioner for deletion of his name from the Exit Control List was declined as Co-operative Department, Government of the Punjab and NAB Authorities did not support the request of the petitioner. That means the concerned authorities of the Interior Ministry has not applied his mind independently so failed to discharge his function fairly and justly.
5. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees as inalienable right of every citizen, to be treated in accordance with law. In particular, no action detrimental to the life, liberty etc. shall be taken except in accordance with law. Likewise no person can be prevented from doing anything which he can do under a law. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees life and liberty, save in accordance with law. The word "liberty' includes to move within the country or abroad freely and without any restraint unless it is prevented expressly by a provision of law. Article 15 of the Constitution also ensures freedom of movement. Freedom of movement in the context of Article 15 means to leave the country and also come back into the country. This fundamental right cannot be taken away from a citizen on whimsical or capricious reasons on whimsical or capricious reasons.
6. We may refer few judgments already rendered on the subject. For example, in PLD 1997 Lahore 617, petitioner was booked in an FIR and for the same reason his name was placed in the Exit Control List. The learned Court concluded that abridgement of this fundamental right through the legislative or executive measures had to be tested on the touchstone of the constitutional provisions. Similarly in another case, Malik Mushtaq Awan Vs. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1999 Lahore 372), pendency of reference against the petitioner was not considered sufficient ground to allow the impugned order of placing the name of the petitioner in the Exit Control List. In another case a reference/investigation was pending before the NAB Authorities against the petitioner when his name was placed in the Exit Control List but the impugned order was set aside by the learned Karachi High Court. (PLD 2005 Karachi 252). Yet in another case, inquiry was pending against the petitioner and on the same ground impugned order was passed which was set aside by a learned Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, (PLD 2006 Karachi 530). As noted above according to the learned Addl. P.G, NAB, two inquiries are pending against the petitioner, thus the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order discloses that it was passed as request of the petitioner failed to get favour with the NAB Authorities and Co-operative Department, Government of the Punjab. The above are not cogent reasons to bypass or ignore the constitutional provisions enshrined in Articles 4, 9 and 15 of the Constitution.
7. Thus, for the above reasons the impugned order dated 22.08.2006 is set aside and declared unlawful and without lawful authority. It is further directed that name of the petitioner be immediately removed from the Exit Control List and no fetters shall be placed on his movement in any manner. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.