1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, C J.---Petitioner has impugned the Memorandum dated 20-8-2011, whereby respondent No,1, i,e, Ministry of Interior has placed the name of petitioner on Exit Control List (ECL).
2. The case of petitioner is that he had served PIA for over 35 yeaRs, In March 1999 till February 2000, for a short span of time, he joined Safe Air International Pvt. Ltd. Karachi as Director Flight Services.
3. He proceeded on 31-5-2005 for employment abroad. It is stated that petitioner, on account of exigency of services abroad, has to frequently travel to and from Pakistan and placing of his name is impeachment of his right of movement as guaranteed under Constitution of Pakistan in terms of Article 15 thereof.
4. ' Learned D.A.G. Contends that name of petitioner is placed on ECL on the recommendations of Ministry of Finance, as the petitioner owes some amount to a private Airline in the sum of Rs,1.15 million. No detail of such outstanding amount has been divulged. It is further stated that any person aggrieved by an order of Federal Government in terms of subsection (1) of section 2 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, (hereinafter EPO, .1981) may within fifteen days file a review, setting out in the representation the ground on which he seeks the review. On specific ouery, that unless the ground on which the name of person is placed is divulged, how it is possible to file a review of setting out the ground to make review. It is stated that in terms of subsection (3) of section 2 the Federal Government is not obliged to specify the ground on which the order is proposed to be made.
5. ' We have heard the arguments and perused the record. Section 2 of the EP0,1981 reads as follows: "2. Power to prohibit exit from Pakistan.---(1) The Federal Government may, by order, prohibit any person or class of persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination out side Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that such person is in possession of valid travel documents.
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary to afford an opportunity of showing cause against the order.
(3) If, while making an order under subsection (1) it appears to the Federal Government that it will not be in the public interest to specify the ground on which the order is proposed to be made, it shall not be necessary for the Federal Government to specify such grounds.
6. ' On perusal of the provision referred to above, subsection (3) indeed reserves the right of the Federal Government to withhold the grounds on which order is proposed to be passed. Such withholding of the grounds is subject to a rider, where it is "in the interest of public". In case the Government proposed to place the name of any person on ECL and there are circumstances, which justify that such grounds are not to be disclosed in the public interest then there has to be finding recorded giving justification for not disclosing the reasons in exercise of authority to withhold such grounds "in the public interest". However, where there is no public interest, Government cannot exercise any power to withhold the ground. Therefore, it cannot be said that in terms of subsection (3) ibid the Government has unfettered or unbridled authority to withhold the reasons or ground under any and every circumstance.
7. ' The view finds support from the perusal of section 3. Ibid, which provides for review and review is to be made setting out the ground on which review is sought. If reason for placing the name of any person on ECL are not made known to such person how it is expected that grounds to seek annulment or review of order could be availed of; though the cardinal principle that no person should be condemned unheard is deemed to be entrenched in all statutes even if not so specifically provided, unless it is expressly taken away. In instant case under EPO, 1981 such right of hearing prior to placement of name on ECL has been specifically taken away in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of the EPO, 1981 but it does not take way the right of a person to be informed of reasons for placing his name on ECL. Such is also the mandate of section 24A, of the General Clauses Act. Subsection (2) whereof provides that the authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or. As the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially. The amendment in the General Clauses Act. 1897 was introduced by virtue of General Clauses (Amendment) Act. 1997, much after the promulgation of the Ordinance, 1981, The provision of General Clauses Act 1897 are to be read as part of every central statute, reasons being to abridge the statute and maintain the preciseness and to avoid verbosity in any enactment; General Clauses Act govern general rule of interpretation of any enactment, regulate the conduct and structure the discretion exercisable and regulate the matters necessary and incidentally in implementing the intention of legislature. The General Clauses Act provides bedrock for general legislation in the field. Even Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 by inserting Article 19- A confers a right to have access to any information in matter of public importance. Information is particularly important and relevant, when it come to a matter that may prejudicially effect right and interest, of any individual at the hands of public authority. The provisions of the EPO 1981 or for that matter all legislative instruments are subservient to Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 is but integral part of all central statute as noted above.
8. Even Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules 2010 framed under section 5 of the EPO, 1981 do not authorize the Federal Government through Ministry of interior to place the name of any person on ECL, who is indulged in a private dispute if any. One of the benchmark for placing the name of any person on ECL as laid down in Rules, 2010, is in a case where such person is a key or main director of a firm, in default of loan or liability exceeding Rs,100 million or defaulter of tax liability of not less than Rs,10- million. In the instant case on the own saying of respondent, there is private dispute of alleged defaulting of Rs,1.5 million if at all, between the petitioner and former employer Safe Airline International Pvt. Ltd. Karachi almost one year has passed no substantial material and sufficient information is placed before the court. Ministry of Interior cannot be allowed to hold brief of any private person or entity nor at their behest abuses the process of law. In case any person or entity has any claim or dispute same may be established and enforced through civil and/or criminal proceedings as may be deemed appropriate. Private parties cannot be allowed to use State arm through EPO, 1981 to settle personal score, therefore, the exercise of discretion in the manner is not warranted. Accordingly the impugned order dated 20-8-2(111 placing petitioner's name on ECL is set aside.
9. ' The petition stands allowed. All pending matters also stand disposed off.