Summary: The petitioners, Tanveer Hussain Manji and others, sought the removal of their names from the Exit Control List (ECL) to be allowed to travel abroad freely. The petitioners were corporate entities engaged in the business of consumer products. Their names were placed on the ECL by the Ministry of Interior, based on an alleged investigation by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding a contract violation.One of the petitioners entered into a plea bargain with NAB, agreeing to pay a certain amount to settle the matter. They have already paid a significant portion of the liability but are yet to pay the remaining amount. However, NAB did not take any steps to recover the balance amount, nor did they remove the petitioners' names from the ECL.The court found that the petitioners' fundamental right to freedom of movement was being violated by their names being on the ECL without any notice or hearing. The court also emphasized that the plea bargain agreement included a provision for recovering the remaining amount through the sale of collateral properties and cheques. As such, there was no justification for keeping their names on the ECL. The court held that the alternative remedy of review under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, was illusory and meaningless in this case.Therefore, the court allowed the petition and set aside the orders placing the names of the petitioners on the ECL, declaring them without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners' fundamental rights to freedom of movement were upheld, and they were permitted to travel abroad freely.

Summary: General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf's petition against the inclusion of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) meticulously examines a wide array of legal precedents and citations to underpin its decision. Here's a detailed overview of the key legal citations and precedents the court relied upon in its judgment:Interim Orders and Final Orders: The court deliberated on the nature of interim orders versus final orders, emphasizing that interim orders are meant to provide temporary relief until a final decision is made. It discussed how interim orders merge into final orders, losing their standalone significance upon the issuance of a final judgment. The court referenced several cases to illustrate this principle, including:PLD 1969 Karachi 546 (Roshan Din v. S.M.Badruddin), where it was held that interim orders merge into final orders.AIR 1987 Madras 173 (C.Kamatchi Ammal v. Kattabomman Transport Corpn. Ltd.), reaffirming that interim orders lapse with the decision of the main suit.AIR 1995 SC 441 (Mrs.Kavita Trehan and another v.Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.), discussing how interim orders are set aside upon the dismissal of the main suit.Fundamental Right to Travel: The court explored the fundamental right to travel as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly referencing Article 15. It reviewed cases where restrictions on travel were scrutinized, such as:PLD 1997 Lahore 617 (Wajid Shamas-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan), which discussed the fundamental right to travel and its constitutional protections.PLD 2005 Karachi 252 (Khan Muhammad Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan), where the court held that placing an individual's name on the ECL without valid reasons violates fundamental rights.Exit Control List (ECL) Regulations: The judgment examined the legal framework governing the ECL, particularly the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010. It highlighted Rule 2, which outlines the grounds for prohibiting a person from leaving Pakistan, and the requirement for the government to specify reasons for such prohibitions, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and transparency.Jurisdictional Issues: The court addressed jurisdictional challenges, particularly the argument that the Sindh High Court may not have territorial jurisdiction over matters decided by the Federal Government in Islamabad. It referred to cases that expanded on the concept of territorial jurisdiction in constitutional petitions, such as:PLD 2001 SC 340 (Anoud Power Generation Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others), discussing how jurisdiction depends on the nature of the relief sought and the effects of governmental actions across territorial boundaries.2009 CLD 1498 (LPG Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan), which held that federal decisions affecting individuals or entities in a province fall within the purview of the high courts in those provinces.Precedents on ECL and Personal Liberty: The court considered several cases where the inclusion of individuals' names on the ECL was challenged, underscoring the judiciary's role in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that any restrictions on the right to travel must be legally justified and proportionate. These included cases like PLD 2006 Karachi 530 (Farrukh Niaz v. Federal Government of Pakistan) and 2014 SCMR 856 (M/s.United Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan & others), where the courts ordered the removal of names from the ECL due to procedural flaws or lack of justified reasons.

Summary: Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)-------Si 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9 & 199---Constitutional petition---Placing nameof petitioner on Exit Control List (ECL) due to investigation being conducted by AntiCorruption Establishment into allegations of massive corruption levelled against him---Validity---Placing of petitioner's name on ECL would amount to interference in his libertyand movement during pendency of such investigation, which was against fundamental rightsas guaranteed by the Constitution---High Court directed authority to remove petitioner' namefrom ECL.Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and 3 others PLD 2010Lah. 230 rel.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former civil servant and ex-Director General of the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA), filed a writ petition seeking removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL) and renewal of his passport. The petitioner was previously convicted under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance, with three references filed against him. While one conviction was overturned on appeal, the remaining two sentences were completed. Despite this, the petitioner’s name remained on the ECL, barring him from travel, which prompted this petition alleging violations of his constitutional rights. -----Issues: 1- Does the petitioner have a constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, which would necessitate the removal of his name from the ECL? -----2- Can the petitioner's name legally remain on the ECL despite completed sentences, with pending appeals posing no active procedural requirements? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the petitioner’s right to travel is indeed a fundamental right under the Constitution. Given that he had completed his sentences and no pending legal proceedings required his restriction, there was no legal basis to maintain his name on the ECL. The court cited previous judgments affirming the constitutional right to travel as intrinsic to personal liberty. Consequently, the petition was granted, directing the authorities to remove the petitioner’s name from the ECL and process his passport renewal. -----Citations/Precedents: Government of Pakistan vs. Dada Amir Haider Khan [PLD 1987 Supreme Court 504] Wajid Shamsul Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad [PLD 1997 Lahore 617]

Summary: Background: A writ petition was filed seeking a directive against the Ministry of Interior to place the petitioner's ex-spouse's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) until the resolution of pending cases before various courts in Islamabad. ----Issues: Is the petitioner's concern regarding the ex-spouse leaving the country grounds for placing their name on the ECL? Does the court possess jurisdiction to issue such a directive under its writ jurisdiction? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, concluding: The petitioner expressed apprehension that the ex-spouse, a foreign national, might depart the country without resolving legal matters or returning belongings. However, the court determined that the petitioner could have pursued legal avenues such as seeking attachment of disputed properties through appropriate courts or submitting a formal application to the Ministry of Interior with justification for ECL placement. Given the factual disputes involved, which are beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction, the court lacked authority to direct ECL placement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to its lack of merit.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan–––Arts. 4, 9, 15, 18 & 25–––Right to movement, livelihood and dignity–––Unlawful restriction on travel–––Petitioner, a private cook employed by an Air Commodore during his posting in Italy, was repeatedly detained at the airport and prevented from travelling abroad on the pretext of being an “Army Deserter”–––Record revealed that petitioner was never an employee of any branch of the Armed Forces–––Respondents failed to produce any proof of military employment or desertion–––Held, that placing petitioner’s name on Exit Control List (ECL) without lawful authority and in absence of any credible material amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 15, 18 and 25 of the Constitution–––Such administrative action could not be sustained. (b) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981–––S. 2–––Placing of name on Exit Control List–––Scope and limitations–––Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL on intelligence recommendation labeling him as a “deserter”–––No record or service history substantiated that claim–––Mere assumption or unverified intelligence input cannot justify curtailment of constitutional right to travel abroad–––Ministry of Interior and FIA required to act strictly within statutory framework and ensure that inclusion on ECL is supported by lawful material and due process. (c) Administrative law–––Due process and abuse of authority–––Duty of public functionaries–––Held, that no citizen may be deprived of liberty or right to travel except by due process of law–––Misuse of administrative discretion to obstruct petitioner’s lawful movement constituted abuse of power and violation of constitutional guarantees. (d) Fundamental rights–––Employment abroad–––Protection of livelihood–––Where petitioner’s overseas employment and visa renewal were jeopardized by arbitrary travel restrictions, Court intervened to protect his right to earn livelihood through lawful means abroad. Disposition: Petition allowed; respondents directed to forthwith remove petitioner’s name from Exit Control List and permit him to travel abroad.