' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C J.---Through the instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners seek deletion of their names as well as the name of respondent No.3 from the Exjt Control List.
2. Brief facts revealing from the petition, as mentioned by the petitioners, are that respondent No.3, who is husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, was the stakeholder of CKG Libya Pvt.
Company. One Naeem Ullah Tewana was sub contractor in the said company, who during his service overcharged from the company CKG, Libya and came back to Pakistan and the petitioners have nothing to do with the same. The petitioners came to know that an inquiry in respect of allegation of money laundering/hundi has been initiated against them on the complaint of Zulfiqar Shah (driver of Naeem Ullah Tweana), when they received a notice sent by respondent No.2. During the inquiry proceedings it transpired by the petitioners that their names as well as the name of respondent No.3 have been placed on the Exit Control List. The petitioners in view of which, filed a representation before respondent No.1 which is still pending without any order. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the name of the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 has been placed in the Exit Control List without any reason and notice to the petitioner, hence he has been condemned unheard; that neither any criminal case nor any reference is pending against the petitioner and merely an inquiry, which is still pending against the petitioners, cannot be made basis for depriving the petitioner of their fundamental right of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that even after the best efforts of the petitioners respondent No.1 is reluctant to give copies of relevant document through which their names have been placed on the ECL, hence the same shows malafidely on the .Part of the respondents for placing the name of the petitioners on the ECL; that even pendency of criminal cases is not sufficient to put any embargo on their movement; that only a so called inquiry cannot be made basis for the placement of their names on the ECL; that the initiation of inquiry and placement of the names of petitioners as well as respondent No.3 is nothing but to blackmail the petitioners and to grab the money from them. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the cases of Masood Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Interior, Islamabad and another 2010 YLR 28 [Karachi], Naveed Zaheer v. Federal Government of Pakistan through M/O Interior Affairs and 2 others (2008 CLC Karachi 1607) and Muhammad Younas Marwat v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Interior and 3 others (2010 YLII. 1573 [Islamabad].
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that the name of petitioner No.1 has not been placed on the ECL and only the names of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 have been placed on the Exit Control List, therefore, if respondent No.3 has any grievance he should file a separate petition, as such, his name cannot be deleted from the ECL through the instant petition; that Zulfiqar Ali Shah, on whose complaint inquiry against the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 has been initiated and their names have been placed in the ECL has not been impleaded as party to the instant writ petition; that after the approval of competent authority said inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3; that alternate remedy of filing a review petition before the Federal Government under Exit from Pakistan (Control), Ordinance, 1981 has been provided and the petitioners have availed this remedy by filing review petition/ representation under Section 3 of the Exit Control List, Ordinance, 1981 which is still pending, as such, this writ petition is not competent as already the petitioners are availing alternate remedy; that the inquiry was rightly initiated and names of the petitioners have been placed on the ECL because serious allegations regarding causing loss of billions of rupees to the Government Exchequers through money laundering/hundi have been levelled against them; that under Section 2(1) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 the Federal Government may order for placement of the name of any person in the ECL notwithstanding necessary to afford an opportunity for showing cause against the order. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General heard. Material made available on the file perused.
6. At the very outset it is observed that in para No.1 of their A petition the petitioners have stated that respondent No.3 is only a pro forma respondent and no relief is claimed against him. The petitioners cannot claim relief for a third person i,e, respondent No.3 and if respondent No.3 has any grievance, he may move separate petition, hence to his extent the prayer is turned down.
Furthermore, learned Deputy Attorney-General has stated that the name of petitioner No.1 has not been placed on the Exit Control. List, hence to her extent petition has become infructuous.
7. So far as the case of petitioner No.2 is concerned, in this regard it is stated that admittedly, on the complaint of Zulfiqar All Shah only an inquiry_ in respect of allegation of money laundering/hundi has been initiated against him and his name has been placed on the ECL. It is pertinent to mention here that only an inquiry No.131/2009 dated 26-7-2011 against petitioner No.2 is pending which has not been concluded as yet and seems to be going on for a considerable time and no material has been placed on, record to justify the placement of the name of petitioner No.2 in the Exit Control List. It is admitted position that only on the initiation of inquiry petitioner No.2 has been restrained 13 from travelling abroad and his name has been placed on the ECL. No criminal case has been registered against petitioner No.2 and neither any investigation in any criminal case is being conducted . In the absence whereof petitioner No.2 cannot be deprived of his constitutional right as a free citizen of Pakistan from travelling abroad and in such. Like circumstances, there is a consistent view of the Courts that mere pendency of inquiry does not justify the denial of fundamental right of travelling guaranteed by the Constitution of a citizen. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon Masood Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another 2010 YLR 28 [Karachi]) wherein it has been held that "No grounds had been given in the impugned memorandum for putting the names of the petitioner on the Exit Control List.
No material was on record to show that any case was pending against the petitioner in any Court.
Merely investigation by the NAB Authorities, which seemed to be going on for a considerable long time, would not be a ground for depriving the petitioner of his constitutional right of living as a free citizen of Pakistan; and there appeared to be no reasonable ground on the basis of which he could be deprived of travelling abroad." The Courts in the above circumstances have gone further and have also held that mere pendency of civil or criminal cases against a citizen is no ground to deny him fundamental right of freedom to travel within or outside Pakistan. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Mian Munawar Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2008 YLR [Karachi] 1508).
8. In the above circumstances, it would be unjustified to prevent petitioner No.2 from proceeding abroad in furtherance of his study, C which would certainly be in violation to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. In view of the above perspective this writ petition is accepted to the extent of petitioner No.2. The respondents are directed to remove the name of petitioner No.2 from the Exit Control List.