ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) vide Office Memorandum dated 25.11.2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being a businessman and director of advertising companies was required to travel outside of Pakistan in connection with his business activities. On 25.11.201i, the petitioner was going from Lahore to Dubai, United Arab Emirates by Flight No,EK 625 when representatives of respondents Nos.1 to 4 stopped the petitioner and did not allow him to board in the flight: and apprehended him without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the petitioner was forced to sign the impugned memo dated 25.11.2015 issued by respondent No,4 whereby the petitioner has been intimated that his name exists on ECL, therefore, he cannot travel abroad.
Hence this writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.11.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that placement of name of the petitioner on the ECL is illegal and without any jurisdiction; that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned memorandum; that inclusion of the name of the petitioner on the ECL is a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of movement guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that the petitioner is not a defaulter of any government dues or any utility dues, nor he is a willful defaulter of any of the public or private financial institutions; that the petitioner does not have any criminal history or pending litigation; that the petitioner is holder of a valid passport issued by the Government of Pakistan which entitles him to travel abroad and to return back to the country; that the illegal impugned actions of the respondents as well as the issuance of impugned memo will not only cause irreparable loss to the business of the petitioner but the same also amounts to violation of Articles, 4, 15 and 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the illegal impugned actions of the respondents violate the mandatory provisions of the FIA Ordinance as well. He lastly prays of acceptance of this writ petition, for setting aside the impugned memorandum issued by the Deputy Director, FIA Immigration AHAP, Lahore and removal of his name from the ECL.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney General assisted by learned Special Prosecutor, NAB submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter; that NAB inquiry is pending against the petitioner but it has not been made party and if NAB has been made party, the case should have been put before the Division Bench rather than before the Single Bench; that there is every apprehension that if the name of the petitioner is removed from the ECL, he will flee from the country and will not come back as there are allegations of embezzlement of billions of rupees against him. He accordingly prays for dismissal of this writ petition. He has placed reliance on the law laid down in C.P. No, 1728 of 2013 titled "Muhammad Asif v. Chairman NAB and others", Constitution Petition No,D-2763 of 2014 titled "Lubna Salahuddin V. Federation of Pakistan and others" and Writ Petition No,2956/2002 titled "Irfan Iqbal Puri etc. v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior Pakistan Secretariat Islamabad etc.".
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. So far as territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the petitioner is admittedly resident of Lahore. As per contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a businessman and he was going abroad in connection with his business activities when he was not allowed to travel and was communicated that his name exists on ECL vide impugned order dated 25-11-2015. The fact that the petitioner was ' stopped, apprehended and disallowed to travel abroad at Lahore Airport has not been denied by the respondents. It is settled law that where the cause of action accrues to a person, he may invoke jurisdiction of the court situated in that area. Furthermore, the impugned order has been passed by FIA/Ministry of Interior which is a Federal Department/Ministry, therefore, the petitioner had every right to invoke jurisdiction of any of the High Court in the country. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court has ample jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Reliance is placed on the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as Trading Corporation of Pakistan Private) Limited v. Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Private) Limited and another (2000. SCMR 1703) and The Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Peshawar and others v.
M/s Rais Khan Limited through Muhammad Hashim (1996 SCMR 83).
7. The impugned order only contains one para which reads as under: "You are hereby informed that you had been placed on ECL by the competent authority. Your name/particulars exist in IBMS in ECL category. You are therefore advised to approach the competent authority i.e, Ministry of Interior Islamabad for further information/removal of your name from ECL."
' Bare perusal of the above unequivocally reveals that it is a non-speaking order which even contains no reason as to why the petitioner is being stopped from traveling abroad rather it says that the petitioner should .Approach the Ministry of Interior for further information. Under the law, the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan Islamabad is only competent to place a person's name on the ECL at its own or from advice from any concerned ministry/department/institution/authority reasonably, fairly and justly. If the Ministry of Interior receives any advice from any department/authority to placing a person's name on ECL, it will apply its own judicious mind before passing any such order. The order impugned does not reflect any such exercise having been done at the Ministry's end rather it appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner without applying its mind and giving any reason whatsoever, for, reaching such a conclusion, therefore, it neither seems to be issued in accordance with law nor sustainable.
There was even no prior notice issued to the petitioner regarding placing his name on the ECL. The Petitioner was also not given any opportunity of hearing to defend his position before placing his name on the ECL which is against the principle of natural justice, i.e, audi alteram partem. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is squarely hit by section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that any authority vested with powers to pass an order will exercise such powers reasonably, fairly and justly.
8. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees freedom of each and every citizen to move freely inside and go outside Pakistan and to do business of his choice. The case against the petitioner is yet at inquiry stage where there are mere allegations. So far, neither any investigation has initiated nor any concrete evidence is available against him nor the case of the petitioner is in any court of law for adjudication of allegations against him. The allegations against the petitioner at this juncture appear to be based on suspicious as no material evidence is available against him as is clear from the report and para wise comments filed by the respondents. In my considered view, the freedom of the citizen to travel abroad can only be restricted if anything against the law stands proved against him requiring such restriction. But in this case, there are only allegations against the petitioner and mere inquiry is being conducted by the NAB authorities so far. Neither investigation nor trial stage has yet reached. Therefore, the freedom of the petitioner to travel abroad cannot be curtailed by placing his name on the ECL as it would tantamount to abridge his fundamental right to travel abroad or restrict his right of free movement guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this regard, I am fortified by the dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Messrs United Bank Limited v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 856).
9. It has been contended by the respondents that there is inquiry pending against the petitioner, therefore, if his name is removed from the ECL, he will run away and will never come back. They in this regard have referred letter No, 3-2(1)(15)/K/NAB/Dy. Dir (ECL) dated 29-10-2015. The said order reads that inquiry is being conducted against officers/officials of' information and Archives Departments, Government of Sindh and others. The petitioner is not an officer/official of any of departments of governments of Sindh but a businessman involved in advertising business though his name exists in said letter at Serial No,2. Admittedly, there are only inquiry proceedings continuing against the petitioner and others. As stated above, the freedom of a citizen cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion or any inquiry which ultimately may end with or without any result against him.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that since alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under section 3 of the Exist from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, this writ petition is not maintainable. In this regard, it is submitted that the order passed by an authority must contain reasons enabling an effectee of such order to challenge it before the appropriate forum. If the order contains reasons, the remedy of appeal is duly effacious and useful and in that eventuality, the writ petition is not maintainable. But in the instant case, the impugned order contains no reasons as to why the petitioner was stopped from traveling abroad by way of placing his name on the ECL. If an order does not have any reasons(s), the alternate remedy is of no avail as the affectee of such order is unable to file an effective application, appeal, representation, or review or against such order to meet with the reasons. In such eventuality, the right of appeal even if provided by law becomes useless. Therefore, this writ petition, in my considered opinion, is maintainable. The law laid down by this Court in case reported as Wajid Shamas ul Hassan v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) is referred in this regard.
11. Apropos other contention of learned Deputy Attorney General that the petitioner has deliberately avoided to implead the NAB as respondent and if it had been so, this case must have been heard by a Division Bench and not by a Single bench. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was stopped and not allowed to travel abroad by impugned order dated 25-11-2015 which only indicates that the name of the petitioner has been placed on the ECL by the competent authority and that the petitioner should approach the Ministry of Interior for any further information or removal of his name from the ECL. The impugned order does not contain any reasons as to why the petitioner's name has been placed on the ECL. There is no order or notice except impugned herein on the file which could suggest that the petitioner's name was placed on ECL prior to the said order. Meaning thereby, there was no such order or notice against the petitioner prior to the impugned order. In the circumstances, the petitioner had to invoke jurisdiction of this Court against an authority which is present in figure, i.e, the FIA and the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Even otherwise, under the High Court Rules and Orders, a constitutional petition is required to be heard by a Single Bench and not by Division Bench until and unless so ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Mere connection of a constitutional petition with NAB does not mandatory require it to be heard by a Division Bench. The contention of learned Deputy Attorney General is accordingly repelled.
12. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25- 11-2015 is set aside and the petitioner's name is directed to be removed from the ECL forthwith.