' Through this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondent whereby the name of the petitioner was placed in Exit Control List maintained under section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981.
2. The petitioner submits that he is an Advocate of Lahore High Court and is practising as such at Rawalpindi. Photostat copies of the licence issued by the Punjab Bar Council and by the High Court are attached herewith as Annexures A and B.
3. Vide order dated 9-9-2002 a copy of the petition was handed over to the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan and was asked to get instructions from the concerned quarters and assist this Court. Thereafter on two occasions the learned Deputy Attorney-General made a request for time to seek instructions. In pursuance thereof, report and parawise comments from Superintendent of Police, Rawlakot, on behalf of the Inspector-General of Police, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, have been filed. According to the report, the petitioner is involved in six criminal cases registered for different offences, and is pending trial. It is also stated that Mehtab Ahmad son of Churched is not resident of village Patho Machala, Tehsil Rawlakot, District Poonch and that Mehta Ahmad son of Noor Said petitioner has obtained passport on the National Identity Card No,701-86-10442 and thereafter on I.D. Card No,701-68-104482 he tried to get N.O.C. In the name of Mehtab son of Churched.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and a practicing lawyer of the High Court. The report against the petitioner is false and that the report is not supported by any material and the F.I.Rs, The petitioner states that on the false report of the police he cannot be deprived of his lawful right. Reference was made to the case reported as Munawar Ali Sherazi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 Lah.
459. Further argued that the petitioner was never convicted from the competent Court of law and the. Presumption of innocence is existing in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, no reason was assigned to the petitioner for placing his name in the Exit Control List therefore, remedy of review under section 3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 was not available to the petitioner and in that reference was placed on the case reported as Wajid Shams-ul Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 Lah. 617 and Arshad Sami Khan v.
Federation of Pakistan 1998 MLD 490.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted that the petitioner has adequate remedy in the form of review and that the petitioner is involved in a number of criminal cases.
' I have considered the foregoing contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is to be seen whether the impugned action of the respondent is within the framework of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981. Provisions of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 are to be examined vis-a-vis the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973). Section 2 of the Ordinance postulates that the Federal Government may prohibit the petitioner from proceeding abroad to destination outside Pakistan. It is also provided that powers granted to Government in placing restrictions on movement of any person from Pakistan to outside Pakistan were wide enough whereby it would not be necessary for Government to afford opportunity of show cause against such order and also to specify grounds on which such order was proposed to be made. The power conferred upon the Government should not be exercised wildly, arbitrarily or capriciously but should be exercised in accordance with the Constitution. Such absolute powers if vested with the Government these are to be examined with caution and care and judicious application of mind. Mere placing the name of the petitioner on the report of the police-respondent was not proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. The mere apprehension that a citizen may be involved in any criminal liability is not sufficient to place his name on the Exit A Control List (E.C.L.) and deprive him from his fundamental right of liberty inclusive of the right of travel abroad. In a large number of cases, the provisions of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 came under scrutiny by the Courts of Pakistan, and it was held that the restrictive laws qua the liberty of a citizen in a democratic State should be put to qualitative test in order to find out that the exercise of discretion by the Authority concerned was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that it was within the reasonable limits prescribed by law under which the aforesaid Authority has acted. This principle was laid down as touchstone and each case was required to be decided in the light of this principle.
7. The name of the petitioner was placed on the Exit Control List by the respondent merely on the ground that the petitioner had obtained passport on National Identity Card No,701-86-104482 and thereafter another I.D. Card No,701-68-104482 in the name of Mehtab son of Khurshid and tried to get the N.O.C. As far as his involvement in criminal case mentioned in the parawise comments is concerned, the petitioner has vehemently denied the same. There is no material in the hand of the respondent to connect the petitioner with the criminal cases.
8. There is no material on the record, which could show that the petitioner may leave the country in order to escape any liability. The citizens cannot be deprived of their fundamental rights without any concrete evidence or complaint brought against him. There is also no material on the record for the involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. Simply because the petitioner is a member of Liberation Front and his name is appearing in the E.C.L., is no ground to pass an order by the respondent to put the name of the petitioner on the E.C.L.
9. Therefore, it is concluded from the above-stated facts that the respondents have placed the name of the petitioner on the E.C.L. Without application of mind and material available against the petitioner. Thus, the respondents have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them under the law.
The action of the respondents in placing the name of the petitioner on the E.C.L., therefore, cannot be sustained.
'Accordingly, I set aside the impugned action of the respondent and direct that the name of the petitioner shall be deleted from the Exit Control List.
' The writ petition is accepted and disposed of.