' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.---This Constitution petition arises in the circumstances that the petitioner who is a Professor of Microbiology in the University of Karachi, had attended a Workshop on Antibody Engineering, in Beijing China, in the year 1995. The petitioner had been selected as a participant to attend the workshop abovementioned which was being organised by International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Trieste, Italy. The workshop was scheduled to take place between May 7, 1995 to May 12, 1995 at the Sino Danish Bimedical Post-Graduate Training Centre in Beijing, China.
2. The organisers had offered local hospitality including accommodation living expenses and a sum of U.S.$ 400. Towards travelling expenses. The petitioner requested the Registrar, University of Karachi, to sanction Ex-Pakistan Leave for the duration of the workshop i,e, May 7 to May 15, 1955 and in addition she also requested for grant of 15 days earned leave from May 16 to May 30, 1995, as she had in mind to use this opportunity to carry out Flow Cytometric analysis of blood samples collected from recent measles cases in Karachi. She also requested the Registrar to direct the relevant office to obtain N.O.C. From the Chancellor, University of Karachi for the participation of the petitioner in the abovementioned workshop and release the order of her Ex-Pakistan Leave. The petitioner had made such request to the Registrar on April 25, 1995 and the Registrar of the University after following the relevant procedure and rules issued an Office Order on 6-5-1995, informing the petitioner that she had been allowed leave to attend the workshop on "Antibody Engineering" to be held in Beijing, China with permission to leave the station as under:--
(1) 9 days duty leave from 7th May, 1995 to 15th May, 1995.
(2) 15 days Earned Leave (Ex-Pakistan Leave) from 16-5-1995 to 30-5-1995 on full pay.
' In the said Office Order the petitioner was also informed that the University of Karachi had no objection to her proceeding to Beijing, China, for the above purpose. The Vice-Chancellor, University of Karachi, had also been informed by the Governor Sindh, who was the Chancellor of the University, that the petitioner was granted N.O.C. For participation in the said workshop on the days 7th May, 1995 to 12th May, 1995 subject to the conditions that there will be no financial liability on the part of the Government of Sindh or the University of Karachi and that the required clearance is obtained and prescribed formalities are observed for the above purpose.
3. Thus, the petitioner was permitted by the Chancellor granting a N.O.C. To participate in the said workshop and the Registrar, University of Karachi informed the petitioner that she had been allowed the leave as requested by her and that the University of Karachi had also no objection to her proceeding to China, for the said purpose.
4. The petitioner proceeded to Beijing, participated in the workshop, enjoyed her Ex-Pakistan Leave and she returned to Pakistan and assumed her duties in the University on June 5, 1995. Thus, she joined the duties after a period of 5 days after expiry of Ex-Pakistan Leave. For these 5 days of absence she explained on inquiry from the University of Karachi that she had been very sick due to strain and was suffering from influenza virus when she arrived in Karachi and was not able to attend duties, and therefore, she requested for grant of sick leave for these 4-5 days of absence as per University rules. It appears that the University Authorities were not satisfied with the petitioner, and therefore, the Registrar called upon the petitioner to produce her original passport. The petitioner instead of producing her passport, explained in detail her activities abroad and informed the University Authorities that she had spent her period abroad in useful pursuit of knowledge as she had been provided an excellent opportunity to update herself on latest development in Immunology/ Biotechnology especially Humanising Monoclonal Antibodies for Therapy of Cancer.
In other words she accounted for the entire period of her absence from the University and also inquired from the Registrar, the specific .Reasons for asking the petitioner to produce her passport, which was her personal and private document. In reply, the Registrar only stated that since the petitioner had gone to China, on permission from the University, and specially N.O.C. Had been issued to her, they wanted to confirm this information from her passport. He further pleaded that the petitioner's passport was not her personal document but it was an official document. The Registrar of the University under the direction of Vice-Chancellor continued pressure upon the petitioner to produce her passport while the petitioner kept on avoiding to produce the same before them and finally being threatened of dire consequences the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present petition, in which she has prayed for declaration that the directions by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, University of Karachi, forcing her to produce the passport before them, were illegal, mala fide and without authority. She also requested for a declaration that the requirement of obtaining N.O.C. From the University before proceeding abroad was violative of the provisions of freedom of movement granted by the Constitution. The other prayers in the petition were in the general terms that she should not be harassed in future.
5. On pre-admission notice, the respondents 1, 2 and 3 filed their comments and they claimed that under the rules framed by the Governor/Chancellor of the University, the petitioner was required to obtain N.O.C. Before proceeding abroad and that since the petitioner had over-stayed after the duration of the workshop, the respondents were suspecting that the N.O.C. Granted by them might have been misused and they pleaded that since they had issued N.O.C., they are fully empowered to check and find if it was used only for the purpose for which it was issued and that it was not misused. The respondents also claimed that passport was property of the Federal Government, and therefore, she was bound to produce the passport before them. However, the respondents made this clear that they did not want the petitioner to surrender her passport to them and that they promised to return the same after inspection:The comments filed by the respondents suggest very clearly that due to lengthy and verbose replied from the petitioner, in response to their directive to submit the passport before them instead of handing them the passport they suspected and apprehended the misuse of the N.O.C. By the petitioner. The main thrust of objection of the respondents to the petition was that since the University Authorities had issued the N.O.C. It was their prerogative to check from the petitioner her visits abroad and to find out whether the N.O.C. Was misused or not.
6. The learned counsel for both the parties at the stage of Katcha Peshi, gave consent that the matter may be heard for final disposal, as a short point was involved. Consequently the learned counsel were heard in detail. The question before us for decision is whether the respondents can force the petitioner against her wishes to produce the passport before them for inspection under the circumstances of this case?
7. Speaking in general terms, the passport is the document which is issued to every citizen as a matter of his right to enjoy the freedom of movement. Excepting under the relevant rules when the passport is necessary to be shown on entry or exit to and from a country, or unless it is required under the law for investigation of a crime or for any other purpose specified by any Special or General Law, a citizen is entitled to keep the same with him as his personal property. In this case we do not find existence of any rule or statute requiring the petitioner to hand over the passport to the respondents. The claim of the respondents is to the effect that since they had provided N.O.C. To her for her visit abroad, they have the power to know about the use or misuse of the N.O.C. Without going into the question whether such power lies with the respondents or not, we do not understand as to how the petitioner can be forced against her wishes to hand over her passport or show to them the entires of her passport when they are neither issuing authority of the passport nor armed with any provision of statutory rule or law under which they can inspect the passport of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents was specifically asked to point out any provision of any rule or statute which enabled them to ask the petitioher to produce the passport before them but the learned counsel, merely relied on the fact that since the N.O.C. Was issued by the respondents they had every right to check its misuse, and therefore, they wanted to check the entries in the passport of the petitioner. This argument dies not appeal to us to be sound. What is the basis for their suspicion that the N.O.C. Was misused'? Secondly what is meant by the word "misuse of the N.O.C."? The N.O.C. Issued to the petitioner was not conditional, and admittedly no conditions were attached to it by any rule of law. Even the order of N.O.C. Did not carry any conditions, and as none is conveyed to the petitioner, nor the same are disclosed before the Court.
8. Merely saying, that since the workshop was at Beijing, they wanted to see whether the petitioner had visited other cities or (sic) prima facie genuine need to do so. Impliedly the contention of the respondents appears to be that since the petitioner who was employee of University was being permitted to attend a workshop in Beijing, China, she must not visit any other city or country. This contention is not supported by any restrictive or prohibitory rules of the University, nor such prohibition is mentioned in the letter of permission/N.O.C. The petitioner had been granted Ex- Pakistan Leave for 15 days over and above the period of the workshop. Naturally these 15 days Ex- Pakistan Leave was meant for private visits of the petitioner to other cities and countries, and therefore, there cannot be restriction on her to visit any other country or city, as long as she was doing so while being on leave, spending her own money. Such restriction cannot be put on the petitioner when there is no such express prohibitory clause or rule while granting the N.O.C. Nor the counsel for the respondents has cited any statute or rule under which the petitioner was restricted to only the visit of Beijing. If the restriction is put on the petitioner in the circumstances, it will amount to prohibit her freedom of movement which the respondents cannot do, as they will be guilty of violation of the provisions of Constitution. We, therefore, hold that the respondents' insistence on the petitioner to hand over or produce the passport to them against her wishes, is not warranted by law. We, therefore, allow this petition, to this extent and grant such declaration, in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought a declaration to the effect that obtaining of the N.O.C. Violates the academic freedom and the provisions of Constitution, and human .Rights.
The petitioner herself had applied for issuing of N.O.C. Which was issued to her and she had utilized that N.O.C. And in that way she has acquiesced to the obtaining of the N.O.C. Apart from this, for the petitioner it is merely an academic question as she has neither applied for the N.O.C. Second time, nor she intends to use the same in future. As such we do not feel to call upon to examine this question in this case. We, under these circumstances, do not consider that such declaration ought to be granted to the petitioner. The other reliefs sought by the petitioner are also of general nature, like declaration that she could not be harassed by respondents etc. Since main declaration that the petitioner is not bound to produce the passport before the respondents against her wishes has been granted, we do not feel any necessity to grant any further declaration claimed by her.
9. During the pendency of this petition before examining the legal question involved in this petition who had on the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents directed the petitioner to bring her passport to the Court so that we may permit a representative of the University to take notes from the passport in the Court in presence of some officer of the Court as we thought that by this way the grievance of the petitioner might be remedied. Today, the petitioner has appeared alongwith her passport in Court, and had offered the passport for inspection of the Court, while stating that respondents had no right to inspect her passport against her wishes and she would not consent for such inspection by the respondents. Since we have come to the conclusion that the respondents cannot force the petitioner to produce the passport before them, we hereby re-call the earlier orders passed by us. Even otherwise the earlier order is now merged in this final order.
The learned counsel for the respondents had also moved an application for issuing-notice of contempt against the petitioner as on one date when the petitioner was required to be present in Court with the passport, she had failed to appear. This application for contempt of the Court is also not relevant now in view of our findings that she could not be forced to produce her passport, and therefore, the Miscellaneous Application No,1290 of 1996 for action for attempt of Court, is disposed of having become infructuous, and not called for, for any further action.
10. The petition was allowed by a short order on 15-4-1996 and these are the detailed reasons for the said order.