SHABBIR AHMED, J.-- The petitioner is businessm an and is doing his business at Karachi. He came to know that his name has been placed on Exit Control List maintained at Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi. The petitioner maintained that during the days of Mr. Abdullah Shah, the then Chief Minister, Sindh, names of some of the Builders were put on Exit Control List, wherein petitioner's name was linked with Messrs Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Company, through the petitioner has nothing to do with the said company. He is either Manager, nor Director or owner of the said company. His name has neither been put by mistake or mala fidely. The petitioner sent application to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Minister of Interior, Government of Pakistan, but without any result. The petitioner is neither a politician nor a bank defaulter but an ordinary citizen and his name has been placed on Exit Control List without any reason. The petitioner had filed Constitution Petition No,162 of 2001: On notice issued to the respondent No,1, learned D.A.-G.
Appeared on behalf of the respondent No, 1 and filed a letter of the Federal Government as comment in which the following remarks were mentioned about the petitioner:--
(1) Mr .Hashmat Ali Chawala Messrs Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Company , KarachiPlaced on ECL on the recommendations of Home Department, Sindh alongwith other 30 Builders/Owners involved in illegal and unauthorised construction in Karachi. On 19-9-2001, the petition referred to above was disposed of by following order:-- "In the comments filed on behalf of the Federal Government, it has been submitted that the name of petitioner was placed on ECL List on the recommendation of Home Department, Government of Sindh. The Government of Sindh has not been made a party in this matter. In view of this, the petition has become infructuous and stands disposed of as such. The petitioner may resort to the remedy against the Government of Sindh in fresh petition." Hence the present petition, inter alia, on the grounds:
(1) The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and is neither a defaulter of bank loan nor of any other Government exchequer.
(2) The petitioner is not a political person.
(3) The petitioner is not wanted in any case.
(4) The petitioner has not been conveyed any reason for inclusion in ECL in accordance with law.
(5) The petitioner has Constitutional right to be treated in accordance with law. In para-wise comments, pursuant to the notice to the respondent No,1, the restriction imposed on the petitioner by placing his name on ECL on 10-9-1996 on the recommendation of Home Department, Government of Sindh for his involvement in illegal and unauthorized construction in Karachi and the receipt of petitioner's application dated 16-8-2000 were admitted. The same could not be disposed of as the views/comments of Home Department, Government of Sindh were invited in September, 2000, the reply is still awaited. Respondent No,1 's plea is that under section 2(3) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, 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 grounds on which the order is proposed to be made, it shall not be necessary for the Federal Government to specify such grounds. The para-wise comments filed on behalf of the respondent No,2 can be summarized as follows:--
1. The name of the petitioner has been included in the Exit Control List owing to his involvement in construction of unauthorized buildings in violation of Building Laws on the basis of summary approved by the Chief Minister on the recommendation of Commissioner, Karachi and Director- General K.D.A. A list has been annexed with the comments. The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No,24 thereof and entry at Serial No,30 is also relevant, pertaining to Doctor's Plaza and owner of the Project, both are reproduced as follows:-- S.No,Name of the project Name of the owner Name of the firm
24. Beach Blessings, FI-1 Blcok-2, Scheme-5Mr. Hashmat Chawala Messrs Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Co.
30. Sea Breeze (Doctors Plaza), 16-A Mr.Zahoor. Ahmad, (owner) Rajab Ali and Talib Chawla (attorney)Messrs Sea Breeze Pvt. Ltd.
2. A clearance certificate, issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer-I Land and Estate Department, K.D.A. Vide their Letter No,KDA/LAND/GUL/CC/7.12, dated 24-2-1977 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Scheme-5 (Clifton), K.D.A., Karachi, shows the link of Mr.Hashamt Ali Chawala with Plot No,FL-I. Block-2 Scheme-5, K.D.A., wherein the issue of unauthorized construction and public complaints are pending.
3. As per office record, Mr.Hashmat Ali Chawala had applied for issuance of Builder's licence in the name and the style of Messrs Sea Breeze (Pvt.) Ltd. In the capacity of Managing Director, and the said Messrs Sea Breeze (Pvt.) Ltd. Are engaged in construction of a number of Projects i,e, Doctor's Plaza on Plot No, 16-A, PECHS wherein the matter of unauthorized construction and complaints against builder are pending in the Zone and Design Section of K.B.C.A.
4. Mr. Hashmat Ali Chawala is a Director of Messrs Qamran Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. (The Builder of Sea Breeze Marine Drive Project on Plot No,FL-10, Block-2, Scheme-5) wherein a case of unauthorised construction and complaints of allottees against the builders are pending. The following suits have been instituted and are pending in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi:
(1) Civil Suit No,1312 of 1996.
(2) Civil Suit No,1002 of 1996.
(3) Civil Suit No,199 of 1996.
(4) Civil Suit No,691 of 1996. Affidavit in rejoinder/reply to comments was also filed by the petitioner supported by the public documents stating therein that the certificate dated 24-2-1977 in the name of petitioner, is misleading and is the result of an error on part of the K.B.C.A. And not by co-incident but with mala fide. The factual position was that Mr.Rajab Ali Chawala was owner of FL-1, whereas petitioner was owner of FL-2. Both persons applied for clearance certificate separately but both applications were submitted on the same date and the clearance certificates were also issued on one date and by mistake or otherwise in the clearance certificate the names of the owners were exchanged. The copy of indenture of lease in respect of the FL-1 filed, shows Mr.Rajab Ali Chawla owner of FL-1 and not the petitioner. The indenture of lease in respect of FL-2 owned by the petitioner has also been placed as Annexure 'B' with the record of K.D.A. Pertaining to the two plots, as Annexures C & D which show that the petitioner has nothing to do with the Plot No,FL-1. It is also pleaded that there has been no complaint in respect of plot or construction on FL-2. He maintained that he retired from the Directorship of the Sea Breeze Company Ltd. On 31-12-1979, copy of Form XII (Annexures 6 and 7). It is also pleaded that the petitioner had resigned from the Directorship of Qamran Construction Pvt. Ltd. On 15-11-1995. Annexure F-4, Revised Form-29. According to the Form-A (Annual Return) (Annexure 'C'); pertaining to Messrs Gareeb Nawaz Pvt. Ltd., for the years 1993 to 1998, different persons remained Directors of the said company, inter alia, Mr.Shahid Hussain/ and Fiaz Begum. The petitioner's name does not appear as Member or Director of the Company. We have heard Mr.Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Syed Tariq Ali, learned Federal Counsel representing the respondent No,1 and Mr.Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh, representing the respondent No,2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondent No,1, in placing the name of the petitioner on the Exit Control List was mala fide and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It was also argued that no reason whatsoever has been communicated by the respondents even after the impugned action. The petitioner has not been furnished with the ground to enable him to make a representation in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance. It was also maintained that the respondent No,1 has placed the petitioner's name on The request of the K.B.C.A which was forwarded by the respondent No,2 alleging the petitioner's involvement in constructing the projects in violation of the approved plan and he has been associated with companies in construction business, such as, Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Co., Sea Breeze Pvt. Ltd., Qamran Construction Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was not associated with any of the Construction Company at the time of placing the petitioner's name in the Exit Control' List. Mr.Rasheed A. Razvi has taken us through the documents filed with rejoinder affidavit, to show that the petitioner is in no way connected with these projects and he further maintained that the respondent No,1 without application of mind on the request of respondent No,2 placed the name of the petitioner on Exit Control List affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It was further argued by him that the provisions of Ordinance were examined by the Division Benches of this Court time and again and the actions of placing the names of the persons on Exit Control List have been struck off being violative of fundamental right enshrined in Articles 4, 9 and 15 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions, he referred the following cases:--
(i) Abdul Hafiz Pirzada v. Government of Pakistan (1989 CLC 79), Saleem Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 Karachi 177) and Babar Khan Ghori v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 Karachi 402). In first case, senior politician's name was placed on Exit Control List. In second case, a Builder's name was placed on Exit Control List on the ground that he is front man of Asif Ali Zardari. In third case, a political activist. The actions of the Federal Government in placing their name on Exit Control List were found to be violative of the Constitutional right and were struck off. Mr.Rasheed A. Razvi has also referred the cases of Wajid Shamsul Hasan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 617), case of a former High Commissioner of Pakistan for Britain on contract basis, his name was also placed on Exit Control List due to registration of criminal case but the action was struck down by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court. On last leg, Mr.Rasheed A. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that Arif Rehmatullah, a Builder whose name was also placed on Exit Control List with similar allegation but his name was removed from Exit Control List and as a consequence thereof, the Petition No,D-969 of 2002 filed by him was withdrawn, thus he contended that the petitioner has been discriminated as well. Syed Tariq Ali, learned Federal. Counsel for respondent No,1 has reiterated what has been stated in the para-wise comments by stating that the name of the petitioner was placed on 10-9-1996 on the recommendation of respondent No,2 due to his involvement in illegal and unauthorized construction in Karachi. On our query, if the order dated 10-9-1996 was passed with application of mind? The learned Federal Counsel was unable to support the impugned order. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned A.A.-G for respondent No,2 has maintained that the petitioner is in construction business and allegation against him was that the construction raised by him was in violation of the approved plan, therefore, the respondents were within their right/jurisdiction to place the name of the petitioner in public interest only to protect the interest of the public and maintained that restriction can be placed on the movement of a citizen from Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan in the public interest and it is not possible to lay down any yardstick by which the public interest could be measured and it is the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned; to support the impugned order, learned A.A.-G placed his reliance on the view taken by Division Bench of this Court in Miss Naheed Khan v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1997 Karachi 513), wherein the petitioner's name was placed on Exit Control List because a reference was proposed to be made to the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner for conducting an inquiry into a criminal charge against the petitioner, on allegation against the petitioner of misappropriation of money and misuse of the funds. The F.I.R. Was registered under sections 409, 420, 109 P.P.0 with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On contemplated action, petitioner's name was placed with the plea that the action taken against the petitioner was bona fide and in the public interest. Learned A.A.-G also maintained that the efficacious remedy by way of review is available to the petitioner and he could have filed a review application within 15 days.
Therefore, the petition is not maintainable involving the controversial question of fact about the petitioner's involvement in illegal construction.
No doubt the Ordinance provides, that the person aggrieved may make representation. If any obligation is placed by this Ordinance, it is upon the respondent to furnish the grounds of prohibiting him as would enable him to make an effective representation to the Federal Government against the making of the order. Therefore, objection to the maintainability of the petition on such ground is not sustainable. Mr.Rasheed A. Razvi in reply maintained that the case of Miss Naheed Khan is distinguishable with the facts for the reason that she was involved in misappropriation of money and misuse of funds in crores of rupees and F.I.R. Was lodged against her and the reference against her was contemplated, therefore, her presence for the purpose of her trial in Pakistan was necessary.
Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case. The allegation of illegal construction is in respect of the projects of Sea Breeze Construction Co., Qamran Construction Co., and Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Co. He had no concern with Ghareeb Nawaz Construction Co., nor with construction on Plot No,FL-1 Block-10, by Sea Breeze (Pvt.) Ltd. The owners of the said project are persons other than the petitioner as reflected at 'Serial No,30 of the List. Such as Zahoor Ahmed, Rajab Ali and Talib Chawala. We have considered the arguments raised and perused the relevant constitution and the law, it would be advantageous to recapitulate the . Relevant provisions of the Constitution as well as the Ordinance XLVI of 1981: Constitutional provisions Article 4(2)(a).--No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law.
Article 9.--No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law.
Article 15.--Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.
Provisions of the Ordinance, 1981
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 outside 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 grounds on which the order is proposed to be made it shall not be necessary for the Federal Government to specify such grounds.
3. Review---(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Federal Government under subsection (1) of section 2 may, within fifteen days of the making of the order, make a representation to the Federal Government for a review of the order, setting out in the representation the grounds on which he seeks the review.
(2) The Federal Government may, after giving the person making a representation an opportunity of being heard, make such order as it may deem fit.
(3) Subject to the order of the Federal Government in review, an order under subsection (1) of section 2 shall be final and shall not be called in question before any Court or other authority.
By reading the provisions of Articles, 4 9 and 15, it is manifest that every citizen has the right that, no action detrimental to the life, liberty---shall be taken except in accordance with law and every citizen, inter alia, has the right to enter and move freely throughout Pakistan. But his right to enter the country if he is leaving it or has gone 'abroad and his right to step out and step in the country, such rights are subject to restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. The Ordinance, 1981, is one of such law. A plain reading of section 2 indicates that the Federal Government has been empowered to prohibit by an order, any person or class of persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan. Subsection (2) further indicates that before making an order under subsection (1) it would not be necessary to afford an opportunity to any person against whom such an order has been passed to show cause against the order. The said section further indicates that the grounds on which the order is proposed to be made, may not be specified in public interest, if it so appears to the Federal Government. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides for a right of review within 15 days of making of the order under section 2 by providing a right to an aggrieved person to make a representation to the Federal Government setting out in the representation the grounds on which he seeks the review. The question of right to travel abroad has been a matter of discussion by superior Courts. In case of Syed Abul A'ala Maududi v. The State Bank of Pakistan and another (PLD 1969 Lahore 908), while interpreting Article 6, Fundamental Right No,1 of the late Constitution 19(2, the Court took the view that the words 'personal liberty' of individual included enjoyment of an undeniable right vested in him to go abroad for travel and to return to his country and that freedom of locomotion was a part of liberty of people. The Full Bench of this Court in Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada v Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1973 Karachi 132), by the majority judgment took a restricted view of the word 'liberty' and held that it did not include the right to travel abroad and the restrictions under rule 31 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, prohibiting the petitioner from proceeding abroad was upheld.
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J. In his dissenting judgment was of the opinion that the impugned order was not a valid order in the eye of law and that the expression 'liberty' occurring in the Constitution was to be given its widest connotation. In Ch. Zahur Ilahi v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Home and Kashmir Affairs, Rawalpindi (PLD 1975 Lahore 499), the provisions of rule 31 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971 which were similar to the present provisions of Ordinance, 1981, were interpreted by Lahore High Court. It was held that the order of the Government restricting travel of a person abroad not supported by reasons was illegal and that the order banning travel had to be relatable to object of law under which it had been passed it was also observed that it was a duty cast upon the superior Courts to review the actions of the public functionaries exercising powers in derogation of the liberty of a person and that travelling abroad was a part of a personal liberty of a citizen which could not be curtailed without assigning any valid reasons or affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter of right of a citizen to go abroad was exhaustively considered by the apex Court in Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan (PLD 1987 SC 504) in the context of issuance of a passport in following terms:- "The learned Judges in the High Court, while allowing the writ petition, relied on the provisions of sub-Article (2)(a) of Article 4, according to which 'no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law ' As there is not much difference between Article 9 and Article 4(2)(a) and the former appears merely to be a deduction from the later, Article 9, therefore, does not take the matter any further. However, Article 15 which confers upon every citizen, inter alia, the right to enter and move freely throughout Pakistan, is of greater relevance. Article 15 guarantees to every citizen the right to remain in, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan. But his right to enter the country if he is leaving it or has gone abroad and his right to step out and step in the country, are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. By reading the provisions of Articles 4, 9 aim 15, it is manifest that every citizen has the liberty to go abroad and to enter Pakistan unless he is precluded from doing so under some law made in the public interest. The Passports Act, 1974 is one such law. It is now well-established law that a discretion vested in a public authority must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith. In the present case, no reasons whatever were given by the appellant No,2 to indicate why the respondent could not be issued a passport. Such an order is not a proper order as without disclosing the reasons why the discretion had been exercised against the respondent, it is not possible to say whether the discretion exercised has been exercised properly or arbitrarily. Before the High Court, no doubt, the reasons for non-issuance of the passport was given, namely, that the respondent was an old political worker having ' Communist thoughts' . This was the sole reason indicated. We do not think this reason was a reasonable ground on which a citizen's liberty to travel abroad could be curtailed. Undoubtedly, to travel abroad could be barred if it was shown that the respondent was going abroad to meet the enemies of the country and his foreign visit could endanger the security of the State or was against the public interest.
Moreover, a citizen's right to travel abroad is an important aspect of the citizen's liberty and is closely related to the rights of free speech and association. As nations in the world become politically and commercially more dependent upon one another and foreign policy decisions have come to have greater impact upon the lives of the citizens, the right to travel has become correspondingly more important. Through travel, by private citizens as well as by journalist and Government officials, information necessary to the making of informed decisions can be obtained.
And under our Constitutional system, the ultimate responsibility for the making of informed decisions rests in the hands of the people. Thus, the reason given, even before the Court was not a proper reason.' The above view of the apex Court affirmed the statement of law made in Ch.Zahur Illahi's case (supra) by Lahore High Court, wherein the assignment of reasons and an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was insisted upon. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer (AIR 1967 SC 1836), the Supreme Court of India held that the expression ' personal liberty' in Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion and to travel abroad except according to procedure established by law. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Indian Supreme Court held that from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one. It safeguards the right to go .Abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law means ' enacted law' and ' State law'. Thus no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable'. If a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex-hypothesis it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness prevades Article 14 like a brooding omni presence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be 'right, just, fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it should be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will apply the omission of the Legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. In Abdul Hafiz Pirzada and another v. Government of Pakistan (1989 CLC 79), the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Ordinance, 1981 came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and the application of principle of audi alteram partem was excluded for following reasons:- - "The nature of the action involved in prohibiting the persons from proceeding to any destination outside Pakistan, the audi alteram partem must be held excluded because if notices were to be given to the persons who are in possession of valid travel documents and reasonable opportunity afforded to them to show cause why they may not be prohibited from proceeding from Pakistan to any destination outside Pakistan; they might immediately on the strength of valid travel documents, make good their exit from Pakistan and the object of prohibiting them from proceeding would be frustrated." Simultaneously, while interpreting section 3, the learned Members of the Bench were of the view that it was obligatory on the authority to furnish the grounds of prohibiting the person to enable him to make an effective representation to the Federal Government against the prohibiting order, as follows:-- "That section 3 lays down that any aggrieved person may, within fifteen days of the making of the order, make a representation to the Federal -Government for a review of the order, setting out in the representation the grounds on which he seeks the review. The Ordinance provides that the person aggrieved may, make representation. If any obligation is placed by this Ordinance, it is upon the respondent which should furnish the grounds of prohibiting him as would enable him to make an effective representation to the Federal Government against the making of the order."
The question whether the impugned orders are within the authority conferred by section 2(3) of the Ordinance, the impugned orders are plainly, on the face of them, purported to be made in public interest, and therefore, their validity must be judged on that footing. A bare reading of provisions of subsection (3) would show that it is left to the Federal Government to determine whether it is necessary to prohibit the petitioners from proceeding to any destination outside Pakistan in the public interest. But made by the Federal Government are subject to judicial review on the ground that the orders are extraneous or have no relevance to the public interest. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of Rana Bhagwandas and Sabihuddin Ahmed, JJ. In Saleem Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1999 Kar. 177, a case of builder whose name was placed on the Exit Control List on the ground that he is reportedly front man of Asif Ali Zardari. The petition was allowed as the learned Standing Counsel was not in a position to find any justification for supporting the impugned order and the order was declared to be bad in law, invalid and without lawful authority. Another Division Bench of this Court in Babar Khan Ghori and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1999 Kar. 402, noted that the expression "public interest" means an act, which is basically meant for the benefit of general public and it differs from case to case.
The expression "public interest" has not been defined in law, but in Ashiq Ali Bhutto v. President, Summary Military Court PLD 1979 Kar. 814 it was observed that, although, it was not possible to lay down any yardstick by which "public interest" could be measured, but it was a matter which could be left to the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. It is now well-settled that every citizen shall have the right to remain in, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof but this is subject to any reasonable restriction. Indeed the power purportedly vested in the Federal Government is apparently unfettered and unrestricted, it is well-settled that the discretion vested in Executive must be exercised fairly, reasonably, justly and in accordance with law and the Constitution. In absence of any incriminating material available with the respondent-Government against the petitioner tending to show that he was involved in any serious kind of nefarious activities or acting prejudicial to the security and solidarity of the State, impugned order cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as not a single instance of involvement of the petitioner in any serious crime is shown to exist. The reasons for placing the name of the petitioner was on account of his illegal consiruction in violation of the approved plan, which is subject to condonation/regularization under the law i,e, Sindh Regulation and Control (Use of Plots and Construction of Buildings) Ordinance, 2002. We do not think this reason was a reasonable ground on which a citizen's liberty to travel abroad could be curtailed. No doubt, to travel abroad could be barred if it was shown that the petitioner was going abroad to meet the enemies of the country and his foreign visit could endanger the security of the State and was against the public interest. The next question in the instant case is whether the impugned order is within the authority conferred by section 2(3) of the Ordinance. The order has not been placed on record. It is pleaded that the impugned order purportedly to be made in the public interest, therefore, its validity must be judged on the principle of fair, just and reasonableness.
It was not disputed by the learned Federal Counsel that in view of subsection (3) read with section 3 that except in case of public interest, the Federal Government is bound to disclose the grounds for making orders prohibiting the persons from proceeding abroad. In the present case, no reason has been assigned, in other words, the order is groundless. The non-furnishing of the grounds for the impugned action is sufficient ground to declare it without lawful authority. From the aforesaid facts and reasons, even the learned Federal Counsel was not in a position to find any justification for supporting the impugned order which is declared to be bad in law, invalid and without lawful authority and is accordingly struck down.