1. GULZAR AHMED, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved by the memorandum dated 3-6-2004, issued by the respondent No,1, whereby his name has been placed in the Exit Control List.
2. ' The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have separately filed their comments.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned memorandum for placing the name of petitioner in the Exit Controller List and even otherwise the loans of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., which were made the subject matter for placing the name of petitioner on the Exit Control List, have been settled and their accounts have been closed and there is no justification for maintaining the name of petitioner on the Exit Control List and that the petitioner under Constitution has a right to travel abroad and that his wish for performing Hajj is being denied to him.
4. ' Learned D.A.G, has relied upon the comments filed by respondent No,l, while learned counsel for respondent No,2 has placed on the Court record a photocopy of letter dated 4-2-2009, purporting to be that of N.A.B. (Balouchistan) in respect of investigation against Zari Taraqiati Bank, Sohbatpur.
5. The factual aspect as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No,2.
6. ' It appears that the petitioner was serving as a Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, Ltd. Sohbatpur, Dera Murad Jamali when he was dismissed from the service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He seems to have challenged such order of his dismissal by filing a writ petition in the Honourable High Court of Balochistan, which as per comments filed by respondent No,2, was withdrawn by the petitioner on 16-10-2008. The petitioner appears to have applied to the respondent No,2 for allowing him to perform Hajj. Such request of petitioner was forwarded by Regional Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, Ltd. Sohbatpur, Dera Murad Jamali vide his letter dated 1- 9-2004 to the Joint Director (PISM) Personal Administration Department of the Bank at Islamabad.
7. In such letter it was noted that audit report of the Bank Sohbatpur Branch, for the period ended 31- 12-2003 has pointed that during the posting of petitioner as Manager of the said Branch four loan cases were processed and sanctioned on fake pass books pursuant to which his name was recommended to be placed on Exit Control List and that four loan cases which related to the period of petitioner, the same have been fully closed and their details in the letter are given and recommendation was made for consideration of his application for performing Hajj. Through office memorandum dated 3-1-2005 of the respondent No,2 the petitioner was informed that his request for excluding his name from Exit Control List is denied and Ex-Pakistan leave was not sanctioned to him. It further appears that the respondent No,2 has referred the matter to N.A.B. Authorities. So far no reference seems to have been filed by the N.A.B. Authorities and through letter dated 4-2-2009, the National Accountability Bureau (Balochistan) has informed that subject case is under investigation.
8. The fact that no grounds have been given in the impugned memorandum for putting the name of the petitioner on the Exit Control List is apparent from the memorandum itself. In the comments filed by respondent No,l the only ground urged for putting the name of the petitioner in the Exit Control List was that of recommendations of respondent No,2 on account of embezzlement of funds of Rs,20.951 million. Respondent No,2 in its comments have not disputed the letter dated 1- 9-2004 written by its own Regional Manager to its Joint Director as noted above where it is mentioned that four loan cases which related to the period of petitioner, their accounts have been closed. Respondent No,2 in its comments has, however, stated that the Regional Manager Dera Murad Jamali vide his letter, dated 3- 12-2004 has pointed out that I6 cases on fake security were originally sanctioned by the petitioner on which subsequent loans were still recoverable. The letter 7-12-2004 of the Regional Manager has not been Hied along with comments by the respondent No,2 nor any details of such loans are given in the comments.
9. ' Be that as it may, in the case of Hashmat Ali Chawla v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2003 Karachi 705), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one among us (Gulzar Ahmed, J.) was also a member, it was observed at page 720 as follows "It is now well-settled that every citizen shall have the right to remain in, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof but this is subject to any reasonable restriction. Indeed the power purportedly vested in the Federal Government is apparently unfettered and unrestricted, it is well-settled that the discretion vested in Executive must be exercised fairly, reasonably, justly and in accordance with law and the Constitution. In absence of any incriminating material available with the respondent-Government against the petitioner tending to show that he was involved in any serious kind of nefarious activities or acting prejudicial to the security and solidarity of the State, impugned order cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as not a single instance of involvement of the petitioner in any serious crime is shown to exist. The reasons for placing the name of the petitioner was on account of his illegal construction in violation of the approved plan, which is subject to condonation/regularization under the law i.e, Sindh Regulation and Control (Use of Plots and Construction of Buildings) Ordinance, 2002.
10. We do not think this reason was a reasonable ground on which a citizen's liberty to travel abroad could be curtailed. No doubt, to travel abroad could be barred if it was shown that the petitioner was going abroad to meet the enemies of the country and his foreign visit could endanger the security of the State and was against the public interest."
11. ' In another case of Khan Muhammad Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2005 Karachi 252), a Division Bench of this Court at page 255 observed as follows:- "(5) With reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner we have carefully perused the case record and seen that although the name of the petitioner was placed in, the Exit Control List on 3-5-2000 but neither said order disclosed any reason for such action against him nor even thereafter any reason has been communicated to the petitioner in this regard. The applications of the petitioner addressed to the respondent No,l also did not receive any response even to the extent of communicating him the reason for placing his name in the Exit Control List. In the cases referred by the learned counsel for petitioner, precisely, it has been held by the superior Courts that liberty of every citizen of this country is safeguarded/ guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 14 and 15 of the Constitution, thus, it is to be jealously safeguarded and any action without sufficient cause depriving/curtailing the liberty of a citizen is not warranted by law and liable to be struck down. Further it has been held that an arbitrary action under section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is not immune from scrutiny by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
(6) In the instant case after going through the whole material placed on record we are clear in our mind that the action of the respondents in placing the name of the petitioner in the Exit Control List is wholly arbitrary, unjust, without any valid reason and violative of his fundamental rights."
12. Keeping in view the rationale laid down in the above two reported cases, there is no material on record to show that there is any pending case against the petitioner in any Court and merely investigation by the N.A.B. Authorities, which seems to be going on for a considerable time, will not be a ground for depriving the petitioner of his constitutional right of living as a free citizen of Pakistan and there appears to be no reasonable ground on the basis of which he could be deprived from travelling abroad.
13. ' After hearing the counsel for the parties, we have passed a short order dated 13-5-2009 by which the petition was allowed and set aside the impugned memorandum dated 3-6-2004 by which the petitioner's name was placed in the Exit Control List. Above are the reasons for the said short order.