1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--The Petitioners, who are / were the employees of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited upon acquiring knowledge that their names have been placed on Exit Control List (ECL), have filed the instant petitions seeking an order from this Court, that placement of their names on ECL be declared as void, ab-initio and consequently be struck down.
2. ' It appears that after filing of the instant petitions DAG along with a statement filed Memorandum dated 25.01.2014 whereby the name of the Petitioners were placed on the ECL. The learned DAG further along with a statement has filed letter of NAB dated 25.01.2014 requesting the Ministry of Interior for placing the name of the Petitioners on ECL on the ground that they are involved in NAB Reference No,01/2014 and the allegations against them were that they have committed the offence of corruption, corrupt practices, misuse of authority, gross mismanagement, cheating public stakeholders etc., and caused loss of billions of rupees.
3. ' Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, contended that neither the memorandum gives any reason for placing the name of the Petitioners on ECL nor the Petitioners were provided an opportunity of hearing before placing their names on the ECL. He further contended that notwithstanding the fact that the name of the Petitioners were placed on the ECL and in the comments filed by the NAB, apprehension of absconsion has been pleaded, the Ministry of Interior had thrice granted permission to the Petitioners Yusuf J. Ansari and Zuhair Siddiqui for going abroad. Mr. Naek has placed on record letter No, 12/22/2014-ECL dated 31.10.2014, 20.11.2014 and 05.01.2015 of the Ministry of Interior whereby permission to the petitioner Yusuf J. Ansari for going abroad for 30 days on each occasion was granted. Likewise, through letter No, 12/22/2014-CL dated 20.11.2014, 31.10.2014 and 05.01.2015 of the Ministry of Interior, permission was granted to the Petitioner Zubair Siddiqui for going abroad for 30 days on each occasion and they have traveled abroad and returned and are facing trial. It is further contended that even this Court had granted one time permission to Petitioners Yusuf J. Ansari and Zuhair Siddiqui for going abroad and even that permission was never misused. He therefore, prays that the placement of their names on the ECL is without lawful authority and amounts to harassments. In support of his contention that the name of Petitioners could not have been placed on the ECL unless show cause notice was served upon them and opportunity of personal hearing was provided and that the memorandum ought to have specify the reason for placing their names on the ECL and in absence of these pre-requisites the memorandum placing their names on the ECL is liable to be declared without lawful authority and their names accordingly be deleted form the Exit Control List. In support of his contention Mr. Naek has relied upon case law reported in the case of Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Khan Muhammad Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2005 Kar. 252; Ashfaq Yousuf Tola v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 Karachi 193), Nazir Adenwala v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Sindh 186) and Wasatullah Jeffery v. Ministry of Interior (PLD 2014 Sindh 28.
4. ' On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt, learned DAG contended that since the Petitioners were involved in gross mismanagement, cheating public stakeholders and in corruption of billions of rupees, therefore, on the recommendation of the National Accountability Bureau their names were placed on the ECL, however, learned DAG has fairly conceded that the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Interior placing the name of the Petitioners on ECL neither specify any reason nor the Petitioners were served with the show cause notices or were granted opportunity of hearing. On our query to justify the plea of absconsion taken by NAB for placing the Petitioners name on ECL and repeated permissions granted by: the Ministry of Interior to the petitioners for going abroad.
5. Learned DAG has referred to letters of request of petitioner Yusuf J. Ansari and Zuhair Siddiqui annexed with a statement filed by him and states that Ministry of Interior had granted two times permission to petitioner Yusuf J. Ansari for going abroad on 31.10.2014 and 30.11.2014, on the basis of first permission he went to Dubai on 05.11.2014 and returned on 08.11.2014 and on the basis of second permission he went to Dubai on 15.12.2014 and returned on 19.12.2014. Likewise two times permission was granted to petitioner Zuhair Siddiqui firstly on 31.10.2014 and secondly on 20.11.2014 and on the basis of first permission petitioner Zuhair Siddiqui went to Dubai on 05.11.2014 and returned on 08.11.2014 and on second permission he went to Dubai on 15.12.2014 and returned on 31.12.2014.
6. Learned DAG. Further referred to Para 'b of letter No,12/22/2014-ECL, dated January 23, 2015, annexed with the same statement detailing reasons for giving such permission, which reads as follows: - "b. These individuals were allowed One Time Permissions on their own requests to the competent authority in which they had requested for grant of One Time Permission due to their emergency travel requirement in relation to business engagements related to the energy sector. In their requests they had assured that they have no intention of subverting the process of law and they are not flight risk in any manner."
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record as well as the case law cited at bar.
8. ' Record reflect that there is no denial from the Respondent that names of the Petitioners were placed on the ECL without issuance of a show cause nor any clarification or explanation was sought from them. Additionally, the memorandum through which the names of the Petitioners were placed on ECL neither details any reason for doing so nor it claims exemption from giving reasons.
9. The response filed on behalf of the Ministry of Interior as well as NAB reflects that on account of a pending reference against the Petitioners wherein it was asserted that the Petitioners are accused of committing gross mismanagement, cheating public stakeholders, corruption and causing loss of billions of rupees to the exchequer, the NAB recommended placement of their names on ECL by treating them as "flight risk" and the Ministry of Interior while complying with such request placed their names on ECL. The memorandum so issued by the Ministry of Interior placing the names of the Petitioners on ECL neither assigns any reason for so doing nor claims exemption and appears to have been issued in a mechanical manner.
10. ' On our query, learned DAG was not in a position to respond that in case the Petitioners were "flight risk" then why the Ministry of Interior had granted them repeated permissions to leave the country and that too without any condition and why the Petitioners had returned within the permitted time limit. Even this Court too had granted one time permission to the Petitioners Yusuf J. Ansari and Zuhair Siddiqui for going abroad against surety and the Petitioners returned to the country within the time frame provided. We are totally at a loss that as to how one of the most valuable liberty of a citizen in respect of traveling abroad could be abridged and that too without assigning any reason or hearing the person whose liberty/right was so curtailed. We have no doubt in our minds in holding that the Ministry of Interior acted on the instructions of NAB in arbitrary and mechanical manner without reasoning out the request of the NAB through a speaking order which of course is a pre-requisite of exercising power under Section 2(3) of the Exit from Pakistan (Control)
11. Ordinance, 1981. Mr. Naek has rightly referred to the case-law developed by the superior Courts whereby a consistent view is taken that right of free movement which indeed includes the right of traveling abroad subject to reasonable restriction has been guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and in case such right is to be curtailed by applying reasonable restriction then such power must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith and the order whereby such restriction is imposed should not be passed mechanically on the request of any ministry or department and unless against the public interest such order must detail reason and should reflect application of mind.
12. ' For what has been discussed above, these petitions are allowed.
13. ' All three Petitioners are present along with their counsel, surety furnished by the Petitioners Yusuf J.
14. Ansari and Zuhair Siddiqui against one time permission for going abroad stand discharged. Nazir to return the same in accordance with law. The names of the Petitioners be deleted from Exit Control List, however, this order would not effect any pending proceedings or would come in the way of the Respondents from taking action against the Petitioners in accordance with law.