' MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated ,22-3-2010 in Writ Petition No,21020 of 2009 whereby the learned High Court had accepted the writ petition filed by respondent No,3 and held the placing of the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list as without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,3 is a director of Angora Textile Limited against which an alleged default of Rs,171.863 million has been claimed by the present petitioner by filing suit before Banking Court for the recovery of the said amount but so far the same has not been adjudicated upon. The present petitioner vide letter of its President dated 15-1-2008 addressed to the State Bank of Pakistan requested the State Bank for placing the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list of the Pakistan. The State Bank of Pakistan forwarded the same to the Ministry of Interior. Vide memo No,12/105/2008 ECL dated 15-7-2008 Ministry of Interior placed the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list. Writ Petition was filed against the above memo of the Ministry of Interior through Writ Petition No,6105 of 2008 which was disposed of by the learned Lahore High Court by directing the petitioner to approach the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Interior to consider his arguments and get it decided by the competent authority. However, despite exchange of communication between the petitioner and the Ministry of Interior and the other stake holders no decision was given by the competent authority and therefore the respondent filed a fresh petition before the learned Lahore High Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Mr. Shahid Ikram Siddiqui, learned Advocate. Supreme Court for respondent No,3, Mr. M. Aleem Abbasi, learned DAG for the Federation and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate-on-Record for State Bank of Pakistan.
4. Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner submitted that respondent is a defaulter to the tune of Rs, 171.863 million of the petitioner bank and the suit for the recovery of the above amount has been filed against him. He submitted that government of Pakistan has issued a notification describing the criteria for placement of a person on the Exit Control List and sub-para v of para 1(a) of this document includes 2-3 key/main directors of firms having more than Rs,100 millions loan default/liabilities for placement on exit control list and therefore, the petitioner/bank vide its letter dated 15-1-2008, had initiated the proceedings by approaching the Ministry of Interior through the State Bank of Pakistan for placement of the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list. The learned counsel, however, conceded that no appropriate order has been passed .By the Banking Court regarding the liability of the respondent No,3 and the matter is still pending so much so that leave to defend application filed by the respondent No,3 has not yet been disposed off. In reply to a query of the Court he conceded that at the time of loan agreement petitioner/bank had safeguarded the loan by acquiring necessary securities and by mortgage of the property of respondents-company and the directors. His only explanation was that the respondent may escape out of Pakistan to avoid payment of the liability but he could not explain as to how the bank's position can be compromised by his absence. He, however, prayed that the order of the Ministry of Interior placing the name of the respondent No,3 on the Exit Control List having been made on the basis of prescribed criteria and having wrongfully been quashed by the learned Lahore High Court may be restored and the impugned judgment be set aside.
5. The learned DAG and the learned counsel for the State Bank of Pakistan adopted the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 drew our attention to Memorandum by which the name of the respondent No,3 has been placed on the exit control list and submitted that no reasons have been given for placing the name of the respondent on the exit control list. He argued that the Ministry of Interior had not applied its mind and blindly accepted the recommendation of the State Bank .Of Pakistan for placing the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list. He further submitted that the learned High Court has given detailed reasons for accepting the petition and holding the placing of the name of respondent No,3 on the exit control list as without lawful authority. He supported the impugned judgment and prayed that the petition being merit-less may be dismissed.
7. We have examined the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the records of the case including impugned judgment, the memorandum placing the name of respondent No,3 on the exit control list and other documents.
8. On perusal of the memorandum, we have reached the conclusion that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner by the Ministry of Interior without applying its mind and without giving any reason for such decision. This is a bald order and is hit by section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and cannot be sustained. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Lahore High Court has noted not only this point but has also observed that the claim against the respondent No,3 by a commercial bank is yet to be adjudicated and this cannot be a ground to place the name of the respondent No,3 on the exit control list to deprive him from his fundamental right of travel aboard or restrict his right of free movement. The learned High Court also held that if present petitioner wants any interim order, it should have approached the Court where the suit was pending as that court can pass any appropriate order and it is an admitted fact that no such application has been moved before the Banking Court. In, the light of the D above observations, the learned High Court passed the impugned judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the observations of the learned High Court and conclusion reached by it are unexceptionable and no interference is called from this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition and refuse to grant leave.