Summary: (a) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Passports Act (XX of 1974), Ss. 3 & 8---Passports Rules, 2021, R. 23---Removal of name sought from Exit Control List (ECL) on medical grounds---Right to travel---Fundamental rights, protection of---Mere criminal involvement does not justify ECL placement---Petitioner aged 85-yearswas suffering from serious health conditions and sought removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL) to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment---His name had been placed on the ECL in connection with a NAB Reference relating to alleged financial misappropriation in a housing society---The petitioner argued that his continued placement on the ECL was arbitrary, lacked legal basis and violated his fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 9 & 15 of the Constitution---The case was later transferred to Anti-Corruption Establishment and NAB no longer held jurisdiction---Question for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Ministry of Interior, based solely on NAB's request and without independent justification or adherence to legal procedure, violated the petitioner's fundamental rights?"---Held: The superior courts of the country have consistently ruled against belated ECL placements, especially when individuals had previously travelled freely---The case reported as 2017 SCMR 1179 clarified that mere registration of a criminal case was insufficient for ECL placement and reaffirmed that restrictions must align with the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010---Further the Supreme Court emphasized that executive discretion was not absolute and upheld High Court decisions striking down unlawful restrictions---Consequently this being settled law, mere criminal involvement did not justify ECL placement---Citizens had a fundamental right to liberty under Art. 9, which, combined with Arts. 4 & 15, included the right to travel, unless restricted by a law enacted in the public interest---Moreover, mere registration of a crime did not constitute a "public interest" justification for restricting a person's liberty---Therefore, the respondent's actions in placing the petitioner's name on the ECL based on the criminal case were inconsistent with established legal principles---Ministry of Interior's decision to place the petitioner's name on the ECL was deemed arbitrary and automatic---This action was solely driven by instructions from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), without independent assessment or a reasoned order from the Ministry---Consequently, the Ministry failed to demonstrate a legitimate basis for exercising its authority under S. 2(3) of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981---This lack of due process resulted in a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights, specifically Arts. 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution---Furthermore, it unjustly prevented the petitioner from seeking medical treatment---Therefore, because of respondents' actions placing the petitioner on the ECL, barring his international travel, and removing him from the flight, contempt notice was served upon the delinquent officials, as their actions were arbitrary, invalid from the beginning (void ab initio), and beyond their legal authority (without jurisdiction)---Respondents' actions in placing the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL), or Passport Control List (PCL), if any, were unlawful, therefore, same were overturned by directing the respondents to immediately remove the petitioner's name from the ECL---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Wajid Shamsul Hassan's case PLD 1997 Lahore 617 and Ayyan Ali's case 2017 SCMR 1179 rel. (b) Passports Act (XX of 1974)--- ----Ss. 3 & 8---Passports Rules, 2021, R. 23---Regulatory framework of foreign travel for Pakistani citizens---Recalling, cancellation and impounding of passports---Essence and scope---Issuance of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing before impounding, requirement of---Exception---Pakistani citizens' travel is regulated by the Passports Act of 1974 and its related rules---Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1974 mandates a valid passport for foreign travel, while S. 8 thereof grants the Federal Government broad authority to manage passports, including recalling, cancellation, and impounding---Section 8 of the Act, 1974 generally requires a show-cause notice before these actions, except in national security cases---A review process is available for such cases---Rule 23 of the Passports Rules, 2021 outlines the procedures for impounding passports, specifying authorized officials and grounds for action, including security threats, avoiding prosecution, and criminal activities---Impounded passports are to be kept in custody, and failure to surrender a passport upon requisition is punishable---Section 8 of the Passports Act, 1974, empowers the Federal Government, through a Secretary or authorized officer, to recall passports for cancellation, impoundment, or confiscation---This requires a show cause notice to the passport holder, as per subsection (2), however, subsection (3) exempts the government from providing notice or a hearing if the passport holder is deemed to be involved in subversive activities or actions detrimental to Pakistan's interests or foreign relations---Subsection (4) then grants the affected person the right to challenge the decision. Syed Abul Aala Maududi's case PLD 1969 Lah. 908 and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada's case PLD 1973 Kar. 132 ref. (c) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Foreign travel, restriction on---Inclusion of name in Exit Control List (ECL)---Ministry of Interior passing the order restricting foreign travel of Pakistani citizen---Legality---Power, authority and jurisdiction of Ministry of Interior---Power to restrict travel under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 resides solely with the Federal Cabinet and not the secretary of the Ministry of Interior---Regardless, the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan are beyond any form of curtailment. Mustafa Impex's case PLD 2016 SC 808 rel. (d) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9 & 15 ---Placing restriction on foreign travel---Inclusion of name in Exit Control List (ECL)---International travel being a fundamental right---Fundamental rights, protection of---Scope---Foreign travel can be restricted despite valid travel documents---Reasons for placing restriction on foreign travel can be withheld---Travel restrictions placed by state must be lawful---Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees legal protection for all---Articles 15, 9 & 4 establish the right to travel, including international travel, as a fundamental right, though it's subject to lawful, reasonable restrictions in the public interest---Arbitrary limitations, like those based on political beliefs, are unacceptable; restrictions must be for genuine national security concerns---Travel is vital for information access and personal liberty, linked to freedom of speech and association---Fundamental rights protect individuals from arbitrary state power and are essential for a free society---Even unenumerated rights integral to named rights are protected---While fundamental rights are crucial, they must be balanced against the State's need to maintain order---The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on certain rights in the public interest, but these restrictions must be lawful---The right to travel, a basic human right, is integral to personal liberty---International travel is not merely a convenience but a fundamental right under Art. 9 of our Constitution---Modern society necessitates global mobility for education, employment, and personal fulfillment, making travel a crucial aspect of both liberty and life---Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, empowers the Federal Government to restrict travel under S. 2, even with valid documents, if deemed in the public interest---Although S. 2 of the Ordinance 1981 allows restrictions without prior hearings, overriding natural justice, Supreme Court rulings mandate that the Federal Cabinet exercises this authority---While prior hearings are often omitted to prevent immediate departures, the Federal Cabinet can withhold reasons for the ban if deemed against the public interest. Kashif Khan Tanoli for Petitioner. Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General and Ghous Bakhsh, Special Prosecutor NAB for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2025.

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A, 15, 25 & 199 Freedom of movement—Placement of civil servant’s name on PNIL, PCL and restricted lists—Scope and legality—Petitioner, a serving Collector of Customs, challenged inclusion of his name on travel restriction lists without notice or hearing—Name was placed on Passport Control List (PCL) under Rule 22(2)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021, and on PNIL under FIA Standing Order No. 2/2018 in connection with FIR No. 19/2023 registered under S. 5(2) PCA, 1947, read with Customs Act, 1969 and S. 109, PPC—Held, petitioner was not a fugitive nor accused of any heinous crime as required for PNIL placement—FIA acted mechanically without applying mind or forming opinion independently—Name placed on PCL without approval of Federal Government, in violation of Rule 22 and law laid down in Mustafa Impex case—No show cause notice issued nor any opportunity of hearing afforded—Action held to be arbitrary, mala fide, and lacking lawful authority—Fundamental rights under Arts. 4 (due process), 10-A (fair trial), and 15 (freedom of movement) were infringed—Availability of alternate remedy before Review Committee did not bar exercise of constitutional jurisdiction where violation of fundamental rights was apparent—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Govt. of Pakistan and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan, PLD 1987 SC 504 • Federation of Pakistan v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf, PLD 2016 SC 570 • Federal Government v. Ms. Ayyan Ali, 2017 SCMR 1179 • Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2023 Lahore 359 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A, 15 & 199 Freedom of movement—Passport blocked and name placed on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Petitioner was stopped at airport and informed his passport had been blocked by FIA due to inclusion of name on blacklist—Respondents placed petitioner’s name on PCL based on recommendation of FIA Balochistan Zone, citing deportation by Iranian authorities for illegal stay in 2021—No notice issued, no opportunity of hearing granted, and no approval obtained from Federal Government as required under Rule 22(1) of the Passports Rules, 2021—Held, petitioner’s fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 10-A and 15 of the Constitution were violated—Power to regulate travel rests with the Federal Government, which includes the Cabinet, not subordinate agencies—Absence of due process and lack of lawful authority rendered action void—Mere deportation in past without present legal bar or criminal case could not justify continued restriction—Petitioner held valid visa and intended to travel abroad for employment—Action declared illegal, arbitrary and mala fide—Petition allowed, and respondents directed to immediately remove petitioner’s name from PCL. Cited Cases: • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808 • Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 800 • Govt. of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi, 2020 SCMR 1 • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 MLD 1020 • Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 YLR 2616 • Tariq Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 224/2024 • Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2141/2023 • Fawad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2129/2024 • Sadaf Sharjeel v. NAB, 2022 YLR 2441 • Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2022 Lahore 119 • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 Islamabad 316 • Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan, 2017 PCrLJ 1569 • Mahboob Ali Abro v. Ayyan Ali, 2016 PSC 938 • Sohail Latif v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2008 Lahore 341

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 15, 199, and Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021 Right to freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Due process—Requirement of Federal Government’s approval The Petitioner challenged the placement of his name on the Passport Control List (PCL) under Article 199 of the Constitution, contending that the restriction was arbitrary, unlawful, and a violation of his fundamental rights. The Petitioner was accused in FIR No. 96/23 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. However, his pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn after the investigating officer found him not guilty. Despite this, his name remained on the PCL based on the recommendation of the Home Department, Punjab, without any prior notice or opportunity for a hearing. Rule 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, requires approval from the Federal Government for placing an individual on the PCL, which was absent in the present case. The court held that such a restriction, in the absence of lawful authority and procedural fairness, violated Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free movement subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Therefore, the placement of the Petitioner’s name on the PCL was declared illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. Cited Cases: Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PCrLJ 1569 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 MLD 1020 Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 YLR 2616 Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore 119 ----- Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to remove Petitioner’s name from PCL, as its inclusion was found to be unjustified, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights.

Summary: (a) Passport Rules, 2021— ----R.22—Passport Control List (PCL)—Placement of name—Scope and legality— Appellants challenged placement and retention of their names on Passport Control List (PCL)—Appellants were neither nominated in FIR nor refused passports under law—Validity—Held, under Rule 22 of Passport Rules, 2021, names can be placed in Category ‘A’ only if persons are involved in anti-State activities or their travel abroad is prejudicial to State interest, and in Category ‘B’ if they have been refused passport under rules—Appellants did not fall within either category—Placement and retention of their names on PCL without fulfilling criteria prescribed by law was without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Order retaining names on PCL was liable to be set aside. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 4 & 9—Right to life and liberty—Right to travel abroad—Curtailment—Limitations— Right to travel abroad though not expressly provided in Constitution is an integral part of right to liberty and to be treated in accordance with law—Such right can only be restricted in accordance with law and upon existence of valid legal grounds—Curtailment of appellants’ right to travel abroad without lawful justification and without their involvement in any criminal proceedings was violative of their constitutional rights—Restriction imposed was unlawful and liable to be struck down. Cited Cases: Government of Pakistan v. Dada Amir Haider Khan PLD 1987 SC 504 Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lahore 359 (c) Exit control / travel restrictions—Criminal proceedings—Effect of mere investigation or FIR— ----Mere pendency of criminal proceedings or investigation—Insufficient ground— Appellants’ names were placed on PCL on ground that their mother was nominated in corruption case and was absconder—Appellants themselves were neither nominated in FIR nor accused in any proceedings—Held, mere registration or pendency of criminal case, investigation, or suspicion cannot justify curtailment of liberty of a citizen or restriction on travel abroad—Restriction imposed on appellants solely due to alleged acts of another person was illegal and unjustified. Cited Cases: Federal Government v. Ms. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179 Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 P Cr.L.J 1123 Sohail Latif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2008 Lahore 341 Muhammad Khyzer Yousuf Dada v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 Karachi 546 Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 P Cr.L.J 1569 (d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Administrative order—Judicial review— ----Order passed without lawful justification—Interference— Respondents failed to show any lawful justification or material to retain names of appellants on PCL—Appellants were minors at time of alleged occurrence and no allegation was attributed to them—Continued restriction on their movement was unlawful—High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside impugned order. Disposition: Intra Court Appeal No.71740 of 2023 was allowed, and order dated 17.10.2023 retaining names of appellants on Passport Control List was set aside, with no order as to costs.

Summary: Background:The case concerns an intra-court appeal filed by Faraz Iqbal Jamil and another against the Federation of Pakistan and four others. The appeal challenged an order dated October 17, 2023, which denied the appellants' request to remove their names from the Passport Control List (PCL). The initial petition for the removal was declined despite a directive from the Constitution Petition No. 45436 of 2023, which had instructed the Secretary Ministry of Interior to decide the matter fairly within 15 days.---Issues:The primary issue in this appeal was whether the names of the appellants should be retained on the Passport Control List, which restricts their ability to travel outside Pakistan. The retention was based on an ongoing investigation linked to criminal activities allegedly involving their mother, yet the appellants themselves were not accused in the related FIR.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad of the Lahore High Court heard the appeal. The court found that:The appellants were not directly accused in the FIR that implicated their mother and others in corruption-related offenses.The legal framework governing the Passport Control List allows for the addition of individuals involved in anti-state activities or those whose travel might harm state interests. There was no assertion that the appellants engaged in such activities.Previous case law establishes that the mere registration of a criminal case or an ongoing investigation, particularly one not involving the person directly, is insufficient grounds for restricting constitutional liberties, including the freedom to travel.It had been nearly a year since the FIR's filing, and no substantive progress had been made in the investigation that justified the continued restriction on the appellants' travel rights.Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the maintenance of the appellants' names on the PCL was unjustified and disproportionate, given the absence of direct allegations against them and the lack of progress in the investigation. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order that upheld the retention of their names on the PCL, and emphasized the need for state actions that restrict individual liberties to be justified, proportionate, and timely.---Citations/Precedents:The Federal Government through Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan vs. Ms. Ayyan Ali and others (2017 SCMR 1179), which discusses the conditions under which individual liberties may be curtailed based on criminal charges.Sheikh Shan Ilahi vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 6 others (PLD 2023 Lahore 359), which elaborates on the constitutional rights related to travel.Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others (2019 P Cr. L J 1123), which highlights the insufficiency of ongoing investigations alone as grounds for placing restrictions on an individual's travel.

Summary: The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking the removal of her name from the Passport Control List (PCL) / Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner learned about her inclusion in the PCL through media reports and contends that the action is discriminatory, violating her constitutional rights. The respondents argue that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases, and placing her name on the PCL is necessary to ensure her presence for investigation and trial. The court refers to a similar case involving Faisal Maqbool Shaikh, where the court ordered the removal of his name from the PCL. The Islamabad Police's report mentions the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, but the petitioner argues that she has obtained bail and is facing trial in accordance with the law. The petitioner challenges the lack of show cause notice and argues that the placement on the PCL violates her fundamental rights. The court examines the relevant Passport Rules, highlighting that the criteria for placement on the PCL include involvement in anti-state activities, which the petitioner denies. The court emphasizes that the Federal Government's approval is required for placing names on the PCL, and no such approval has been provided in this case. The petitioner asserts that the placement on the PCL infringes on her fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement. The court references various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of fair and reasonable exercise of discretionary powers, especially regarding the right to travel. The petitioner contends that she has not been involved in anti-state activities, and the lack of approval from the Federal Government makes her inclusion on the PCL unlawful. The court concludes that the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated, and her name should be removed from the PCL. --- In the case of Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf through Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others (PLD 2014 Sindh 389), the court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case does not automatically warrant the inclusion of the accused on the Exit Control List (E.C.L). The court emphasized that bail, once granted, falls within the jurisdiction of the court to regulate the custody of the accused. Additionally, it was pointed out that the law provides procedures to address situations where an accused is absconding. ---- In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan & others (PLD 2014 Islamabad 29), the court underscored the fundamental right to movement/travel guaranteed under the Constitution and international agreements. The authorities were reminded of their obligation to resolve public issues fairly and promptly, highlighting that depriving a citizen of fundamental rights without due process, especially when no trial has taken place, is a violation of those rights. --- In Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior & 3 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 230), the court emphasized that the right to travel is an integral part of human liberty and a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The judgment recognized the significance of international travel in modern life and considered it a right to life as well as a right to liberty. The court stressed that any restriction on these fundamental rights must be in accordance with law, satisfying both substantive and procedural due process. ---- The case of Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) affirmed that the right of a citizen to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by various articles of the Constitution. The court asserted that the registration of a criminal case alone cannot justify curtailing a citizen's fundamental rights. --- In conclusion, the court, relying on established legal principles and precedents, declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List unjustified, illegal, and without lawful authority. The court directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the list within a specified time frame.

Summary: Petitioner was acquitted from 9-a under CNSA but still his name reflects in passport control list. Seeks removal. FIR No. 91/2024 dated 27.05.2024 U/s 9(1)3(a) CNAS P.S. ANF/Peshawar --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 15—Freedom of movement—Passport Control List (PCL)—Right to travel abroad—Scope and limitation. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to move freely and travel within or outside Pakistan, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. Continued retention of a citizen’s name on the Passport Control List after acquittal from criminal proceedings, and despite recommendations for removal by the competent agency, constitutes arbitrary interference with the constitutional right of movement and is contrary to due-process protections. (b) Passports Rules, 2021 ----R. 22—Passport Control List—Categories ‘A’ and ‘B’—Authority to include or delete name—Obligation to decide representation. Under R. 22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, names placed on the PCL are maintained under two categories: Category ‘A’: persons involved in anti-State or security-sensitive matters; Category ‘B’: persons refused passport facilities for reasons other than anti-State activities, on recommendations of a Government department or agency. The normal retention period is five years, extendable only upon written justification. The Directorate General of Immigration & Passports and the Ministry of Interior are bound to periodically review entries and to decide applications seeking removal within a reasonable time. Failure to do so amounts to maladministration and infringement of lawful rights. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ----S. 9—Acquittal of accused—Effect on administrative restrictions. Where an accused has been acquitted in a narcotics case and the prosecuting agency (ANF) itself recommends deletion of his name from the PCL, continuation of such restriction serves no lawful purpose. Administrative authorities cannot ignore judicial exoneration or agency recommendation without fresh justification. (d) Administrative law ----Natural justice—Duty to decide pending application—Direction to authority. When an application for removal of name from the PCL is pending before the Ministry of Interior despite clear recommendations of the ANF and judicial acquittal, the Court may direct the competent authority to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. Disposition Writ Petition disposed of. Ministry of Interior directed to decide the petitioner’s application dated 13 February 2025 for removal of his name from the PCL within fifteen (15) days in accordance with law. Citation: Ibrar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan & others, W.P. No. 1235 of 2025, decided on 28 April 2025, per Muhammad Asif, J.—Islamabad High Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 15 & 199—Freedom of movement—Blocking of passport—Scope—Held, every citizen has the fundamental right to enter, remain in, and move freely throughout Pakistan, and to travel abroad subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest—Blocking of a citizen’s passport without notice, hearing, or lawful authority amounts to violation of due process, liberty, and freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution—Petitioner’s passport was blocked without issuance of any show-cause notice or order, which constituted arbitrary exercise of power and was void ab initio. (b) Passports Act, 1974 and Passports Rules, 2021 ----R. 22—Passport Control List (PCL)—Authority of Federal Government—Interpretation—Under R.22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, the power to regulate departure from and entry into Pakistan, and to maintain the Passport Control List, vests exclusively in the Federal Government, i.e., the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively, and not in individual agencies such as FIA—Any blocking or inclusion of a person’s name in the PCL without Cabinet approval or due process is unlawful—Reliance placed on Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808), Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad (2021 SCMR 800), Government of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi (2020 SCMR 1), and Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020 Islamabad). (c) Administrative law—Exercise of statutory power—When a statute prescribes a specific mode for doing an act, that mode must be followed; any deviation vitiates the action—Blocking of passport without prior notice, reasons, or opportunity of hearing held to be contrary to law and legislative intent—Reliance placed on Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020), Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 YLR 2616), Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 Lahore 119), and Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Islamabad 316). (g) Disposition— Writ petition allowed—Blocking of petitioner’s passport declared illegal—Respondents directed to forthwith unblock Passport No. HF2740613. ---"Blocking of the Petitioner’s Passport violates his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement, all of which are guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a well-established principle of law that when the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done accordingly, otherwise, it constitutes non-compliance with the legislative intent. In this regard reliance is placed upon Dr. Shireen M. Mazari Versus FOP etc., 2024 MLD 1020, Rasikh Ellahi Versus FOP etc., 2024 YLR 2616, Tariq Shafi Versus FOP etc., W.P. No. 224/2024 , Faisal Maqbool Sheikh Versus FOP etc., Fawad Ahmed Versus FOP etc., WP 2129/2024, Sadaf Sharjeel Versus NAB etc., 2022 YLR 2441, Farah Mazhar Versus FOP etc., PLD 2022 Lahore 119, Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari Versus FOP etc., PLD 2019 Islamabad 316, Dr. Joseph Wilson Versus FOP etc., 2017 PCrLJ 1569, Mahboob Ali Abro Versus Ayan Ali etc., 2016 PSC 938 and Sohail Latif etc. Versus FOP etc., PLD 2008 Lahore 341. "

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199 — Passport Rules, 2021, R.22 — Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 — Challenge to placement of name on Passport Control List (PCL)—Scope—Authority of Federal Government—Judicial scrutiny—Petitioner, accused in FIR No. 38/2022 under various penal and FERA provisions, challenged notification dated 23.01.2023 placing his name on the PCL—Held, Rule 22 of the Passport Rules, 2021 vests exclusive authority in the Federal Government to regulate entry/exit of citizens and to approve placement of names on PCL—In present case, no approval from Federal Government (i.e., Prime Minister or Cabinet) was placed on record—Neither the “Division concerned” nor the “Directorate General of Immigration & Passports” was shown to have issued or maintained the PCL entry—Thus, the impugned notification was without lawful authority—Petitioner’s case did not fall within either category 'A' (anti-state) or 'B' (refusal of passport) under Rule 22—No allegation of anti-state activity or refusal of passport facility was made—Court found that mandatory conditions for valid PCL inclusion were not met. Held, restriction on movement without due approval of Federal Government under Rule 22 was violative of law and liable to be set aside. —Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Federation PLD 2016 SC 808; Controller General of Accounts v. Fazal Ahmad 2021 SCMR 800; Government of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi 2020 SCMR 1 ref. (b) Passport Rules, 2021 — Rr. 2(e), 2(f), 22 — Interpretation of “Division concerned” and “Directorate General”—Administrative authority to place names on PCL—Requirements—Scope—Rule 22(2) requires the “Division concerned” and “Directorate General” to prepare and maintain the PCL—Definitions under Rule 2(e) & 2(f) clarified that Directorate General means Directorate of Immigration and Passports and the Division concerned refers to its supervising federal division—Held, no material shown that either of these authorities maintained or approved petitioner’s PCL entry—Action taken solely by FIA was ultra vires. Held, PCL placement must originate from competent authority as defined in Rules; administrative overreach by FIA alone is insufficient. (c) Passport Rules, 2021 — R.22 — Freedom of movement—Scope—Lack of lawful classification—Violation of fundamental rights—Held, where statutory procedure is not complied with and no valid reason under Category A or B of Rule 22 exists, restriction on a citizen’s right to travel amounts to infringement of constitutional liberty—Petitioner joined investigation, was on pre-arrest bail, and no allegation of evasion or risk of absconding was substantiated—State action was found to be arbitrary and unlawful. (d) Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 — S.8(a) Departure of accused from Pakistan after cognizance by Special Court—Scope—Respondents argued bar on petitioner’s travel under S.8(a) of the Banks Act—Held, bar becomes operative only once Special Court takes cognizance of the scheduled offence—In instant case, no challan had been submitted and cognizance had not been taken—Therefore, embargo under S.8(a) was not attracted. —Ali Gohar v. Pervaiz Ahmed PLD 2020 SC 427 ref. Disposition: Writ petition allowed. Notification dated 23.01.2023 placing petitioner’s name on Passport Control List was declared illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority. Respondents directed to remove petitioner’s name from PCL forthwith.