' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner has made the following prayer:--- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may please be accepted and respondents be ordered to remove name of the petitioner from ECL and to issue him a valid passport (return his surrendered passport No,GD 1150711), in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been associated with Dr, A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), Kahuta as a Metallurgist from September, 1983 and had been working on different positions and ultimately he was retired from service on superannuation on 5-1-2007. In recognition of his valuable services, the petitioner was awarded Sitara-i-Imtiaz on 23-3-1998. It is added that the petitioner was held in preventive detention by the orders of respondent No,1 for a period of 3 months twice and ultimately vide Order No,7/19/2004-Police dated 23-7-2004 his detention order dated 20-4-2004 was withdrawn by respondent No,1; that on 23-7-2004 the petitioner received a letter No,7/19/2004-Police issued by Deputy Secretary of respondent No,1 in which certain restrictions were imposed upon the petitioner including therein that the petitioner will inform the Director General, Security Division, KRL prior to leaving Islamabad. It was also mentioned in this letter that the said order unless withdrawn earlier shall be valid for a period of 3 months.
Again vide letter No,7/19/2004-Police dated 16-12-2004 the petitioner was served upon with another letter issued by the Deputy Secretary of respondent No,1 which was replica of the letter dated 23-7-2004 with the only difference that the said order unless withdrawn earlier, shall be valid for indefinite period. It is maintained that vide order No,7/19/2004- Police dated 5-1-2005, the petitioner again received a letter from respondent No,1 the contents of which were same as the above previous two letters except with the difference that the order unless withdrawn earlier shall be valid for a period of three months. It is further alleged that the petitioner was issued Passport No,GD 1150711 on 15-1-2007 by the Directorate General, Regional Passport Office, Islamabad, However, vide order No,13/15/2006-Policy dated October 26, 2007 issued by respondent No,2, the petitioner was advised to surrender his passport to respondent No,2 failing which the passport will be cancelled. It was further mentioned that the petitioner's name was placed on Exit Control List, hence the petitioner was not to be issued passport. Consequently, the petitioner surrendered his passport with respondent No,2. The petitioner has tried his level best for removal of his name from the ECL but to no avail; that the withdrawal of the name of the petitioner from the ECL and issuance of passport are the fundamental rights of the petitioner which are being denied by the respondents. Now it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that his name was placed on ECL on the instructions passed by respondent No,3. The petitioner is presently working as Director General/CEO of Hamdard University, Islamabad Campus and has nothing to do with any activity prejudicial to the internal or external security of Pakistan. The petitioner intends to visit UAE, China, Singapore etc. To attend meetings in connection with his duties with Hamdard University and Saudi Arabia for performing Umrah and Hajj but due to acts of respondents he cannot travel abroad, hence this constitutional petition,
3. The respondents have vehemently opposed the petition,
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was retired honourably and at the time of his retirement no such condition was imposed; that at the time of his retirement, the petitioner cleared all his dues and no financial liabilities exists and the pension is being regularly received by the petitioner; that during service certain conditions were imposed upon the petitioner. It is added that all the conditions imposed stood withdrawn after 3 months and no further office memorandum or letter imposing any restriction was delivered to the petitioner; that as per Exit Control List no notice was given to the petitioner; that the petitioner had earlier filed two representations, but in vain. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon Government of Pakistan v. Dada Amir Haider Khan (PLD 1987 SC 504), Wajid Shamas-ul-Hassan v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 617), Khalid Rashid and 5 others v. Federation of Pakistan (2011 MLD 1532 Lahore), Farooq Saleh Chohan v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2010 Karachi 394), Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 Lahore 230) and S. Akbar All Shah v. Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2011 MLD 1536 Karachi).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,4 forcefully opposed the petition and contended that KLR is a strategic Organization under the National Command Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), therefore, no writ lie against it and in this regard he has referred to section 22 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010; that there are two types of officials/officers in KLR i,e, one are civilians and others are Army personnel and if appointment of a civil official/officer is made by Army Personnel, then jurisdiction of this COurt is barred under Article 199(3), of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that though the petitioner has been retired from service, but according to section 2(c) of the Act, such retired officer would also be considered as an employee of the National Command Authority. It is further added that under section 9(1) of the Act all the employees are the employees of the National Command Authority and they will be dealt as such. It is further contended that under section 21 of the Act the other laws have been override; that under section 7(f) of the Act measures can be adopted regarding employees in respect of their movement and communication etc. Learned Deputy Attorney- General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No,4.
6. Arguments heard and the material placed on the record has also been perused,
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had been working in Dr. A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), which is a Strategic Organization and at present he has been retired from service. The National Command Authority Act has been promulgated in the year 2010. Definition of Strategic Organization has been given in section 2(d) of the Act, which states that:--- "Strategic Organization" means such body notified by the Authority to be a Strategic Organization and includes Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Dr. A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) and Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission."
' Definition of employee has been elaborated in section 2(c), of the Act which provides that:--- "Employee" means any official, employee etc. Whether in the service of the Authority or the Strategic Organizations, serving or retired and includes those on deputation or secondment within Pakistan or aboard and those studying abroad."
From the above quoted definitions it is crystal clear that KLR is a Strategic Organization. The definition of employee goes to show that even the retired persons shall also be considered as employees of the Organization.
8. According to section 7 of the Act, the Authority shall have the powers to perform all such functions that are necessary to implement the objects and purposes of Act. According to section 7(f) of the Act, the Authority was empowered to take measures regarding employees in respect of their movement, communication, privacy, assembly or association, in the public interest or in the interest of integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or friendly relations with foreign states and public order.
9. Section 22 of the Act relates to jurisdiction. It would be instructive to re-produce the same, which reads as under:---
22. Jurisdiction barred.--- Save as provided under this Act, no order made or proceedings taken under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder by the Competent Authority or any officer or Authority authorized by it shall be called in question in any court or administrative tribunal and no injunction shall be granted by such court or tribunal in respect of any decision made or proceedings taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act, rules or regulations made there under."
The above section of the Act has clearly barred the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the petitioner is to be considered as employee of the Strategic Organization, therefore, in view of above provision of law this Court cannot interfere in the impugned order, as the jurisdiction of courts have been specifically barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert this clear position of law.
10. In view of the above perspective, this writ petition is not maintainable, so the same is dismissed.