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.