P L D 2023 Balochistan 65
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
JAFFAR KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad
and 3 others ---Respondents
C.P. No. 1986 of 2022, decided on 10th January, 2023.
Passport Rules, 2021 ---
----Rr. 21 & 22--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Freedom of movement ---Passport
Control List ---Removal of name ---Petitioner's son was working abroad and his name was
included in Passport Control L ist---Plea raised by petitioner was that his son intended to
travel to Pakistan to face charges in criminal case registered against him ---Validity ---
Guarantees have been provided under Art. 15 of the Constitution to citizen to have the right
to remain in a nd subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in public interest to
enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part ---Son of
petitioner could obtain Emergency Travel Documents from concerned Consulate General of
Pakistan to join criminal proceedings initiated against him in Pakistan ---Petitioner was
willing to face criminal indictment in Pakistan therefore, he could not be prevented to come
to his country of abode as guaranteed in the Constitution ---Respondent author ity was
competent to remove names of citizen from list in question and concerned Consulate General
of Pakistan could issue travel documents to blacklisted citizens for travelling to Pakistan ---
High Court directed the authorities to issue Emergency Travel D ocuments to son of
petitioner so as he could face criminal charge in Pakistan ---Constitutional petition was
allowed accordingly.
Hameedullah v. Saifullah Khan and others PLD 2007 SC 52; Shela Zia and others v.
WAPDA PLD 1974 SC 693 and Hassan Raza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2022 CLD 92 rel.
Abdul Sattar Sherani, Abdul Ghani Sherani and Malik Waris Kakar for Petitioner.
Saeed Ahmed, Law Officer for Respondent No.1.
Malik Anwar Naseem, Deputy Attorney Gene ral and Muhammad Rashid, Assistant
Attorney General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd January, 2023.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ---In the instant constitutional petition filed under
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakist an by the petitioner, 1973
("Constitution"), carries the following relief;
"A. Declare that the order of the Respondents whereby name of Iram [sic] (petitioner's
son) has been placed on the Exit Control List is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void ab-initio and as a consequential relief strike down the same.
B. Suspend the operation of the order of the Respondents, whereby the name of the Petitioner's son (Imran) has been placed on Exit Control List.
C. Declare that blacklisting the passport of Imran vide the File No. 2/67/2021- BL CELL,
at serial No. 06, dated: 6th may 2021 to be completely without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio and of no legal effect, while quashing the same and clarifying that the petitioner is free to travel within, without or outside Pakistan
and any order of the Court is self -executory and is to be implemented forthwith by the
respondents and all functionaries superior or sub -ordinate to them.
D. Direct the Respondents to remove the name of Petitioner from Exit Control List and allow the Petitioner to travel abroad and come back to Pakistan.
E. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted."
2. Facts germane to the lis in hand are that the petitioner is resident of District Sherani
Balochistan, whose son namely Imran is stated to be working as labourer in Alain United Arab Emirates for more than two years. According to him, recently when his son went to the Consulate Gener al of Pakistan in UAE for renewal of his travel documents, his request was
denied on the ground that his passport has been blacklisted for he is an accused in a criminal case bearing FIR No.1221/2021 dated 18.12.2019 registered with Police Station Cantt: District Dera Ismail Khan under the offence punishable under section 496- A of P.P.C. by
complainant Imran Fareed Khan son of Adnan Fareed Khan and that his name has been arrayed in the memorandum of Exit Control List ("ECL") by the concerned authorities. The petitioner further averred that his son Imran is ready to face the case registered against him, but until he receives the passport, he cannot travel to Pakistan, as such, despite several
efforts his son is unable to receive the passport due to which heavy fine has been imposed
upon him for overstay on daily basis.
3. In response to the petition, respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a joint statement of para -wise
comments, contending therein that in compliance of the order dated 23.04.2021 passed by learned Additi onal Sessions Judge/Judge Child Protection Judge, Juvenile Court D.I. Khan
("ASJ, D.I. Khan"), Imran son of the petitioner was placed on the Passport Control List
("PCL") against ID No.4190/2021 maintained as per provisions contained in Rules 21 and 22
of the Passport Rules, 2021, but not on ECL. However, it was also suggested that the son of
the petitioner can travel back to Pakistan by obtaining emergency travel document from the concerned Consulate General of Pakistan in UAE to join criminal proceedings initiated against him in Pakistan.
4. Heard. Record scanned with utmost care and caution. The question as to whether the
petitioner is an aggrieved person, it may be observed that the aggrieved person has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca se of 'Hameedullah v. Saifullah Khan and
others' (PLD 2007 SC 52), wherein it has been held that "an aggrieved person" denotes a
person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced,
which has wrongfully deprived him and w rongfully refused him something, which he was
legally entitled to. For a person, who invokes the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199
of the Constitution has to establish that any of his legal right or fundamental right guaranteed under the Consti tution has been violated, culminating in legal loss.
Indisputably, the instant constitutional petition has not been filed by Imran son of the
petitioner, who is stranded in UAE and is unable to travel back to Pakistan, but his father is an aggrieved perso n because he is being denied the right as contemplated under Article 14 of
the Constitution, which employs that dignity of a man is inviolable, which may refer to right to live with dignity with his family wherever require and arrive to care for one and the other.
In this regard reference can be made to the case of 'Shela Zia and others v. WAPDA' (PLD
1974 SC 693).
5. In wake of the above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner falls within the
definition of an aggrieved person, as such the insta nt petition is competent and maintainable.
6. The petitioner claims that his son is stranded in UAE because he is not being issued
passport as his name figures in the ECL, whereas this is not the case. Respondents Nos. 1 to
3 categorically have come up wit h a clear stance that the name of the son of petitioner is
placed in the PCL against ID No.4190/2021 on the orders of ADJ, D.I Khan dated 23.04.2021 and suggested that he can obtain Emergency Travel Documents from the Consulate General of Pakistan in UAE. Admittedly, the ECL is meant for the persons, who are prevented to leave the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan and as such does not apply to a person who has already left territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan and is present in foreign territory. After ca tegorical statement of respondents Nos.1 to 3, it is clear that the son of the
petitioner in UAE after approval and receipt of the Emergency Travel Documents would be able to travel from UAE to Pakistan to face the criminal charges before the learned ADJ, D.I. Khan.
7. To understand the laws related to PCL, section 51 of the Passport and Visa Manual
2006 is relevant, which enunciates procedure for blacklisting. The provision ibid employs that if a citizen of Pakistan is fit to be blacklisted for passport fa cilities, the passport issuing
authority would refer the matter to Director General, Immigration and Passport giving reasons with full particulars for his blacklisting and the Director General Immigration and Passport will obtain orders of the Ministry of Interior in the matter. The Federal Government is vested with powers to regulate the departure from Pakistan and visit abroad, whereas in order to check the exit of individual from Pakistan, a blacklist -exit control list are
maintained, whereof the inclusi on into and deletion therefrom is the sole prerogative of the
Ministry of Interior. There are two categories A and B, which are as infra;
"Category A": Under this category the names of those persons are placed who are believed to be involved in anti -State activities or whose visit to foreign countries is
considered to be prejudicial to the State interest, or, whose visit abroad is banned from security point of view. The names in this list are included or removed by the Ministry of Interior.
Category B": U nder this category, the names of those persons are placed who are
involved in the offences punishable under section 6 of Passports Act 1974 or those who were refused passport under Para 21 of Passport and Visa Manual. The names of persons are also included in this list on the recommendations of government
agencies/departments as well as those who are deported/repatriated from abroad. Director General, Immigration and Passport is competent to place and remove names
in this list."
8. Admittedly, the case of t he petitioner does not fall within category 'A' as he is neither
involved in any anti -state activities prejudicial to the state interest nor he is banned to visit
abroad due to security reasons rather he has been nominated in the FIR ibid in a private
matter by complainant Imran Fareed, thus such restrictions do not apply to the case of the
son of the petitioner as his case is related to an indictment of a private nature. In this regard
our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Sindh High Court a uthored by Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam in the case of 'Hassan Raza v. Federation of Pakistan through
Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad' (2022 CLD 92).
9. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees a citizen to have the right to remain in and,
subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest to enter and move
freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle any part thereof.
10. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 categorically made statement that the son of the petitioner
can obtain Emergency Travel Documents from the concerned Consulate General of Pakistan to join criminal proceedings initiated against him in Pakistan. The petitioner is admittedly
willing to face the criminal indictment in Pakistan, therefore, he cannot be prevented to come
to his country of abode as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Director General, Immigration
and Passport ( Respondent No.2) is competent to remove and place the names of a citizen in
the list ibid and the concerned Consulate General of Pakistan can issue travel documents to the blacklisted citizen for travelling to Pakistan.
11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed, and consequently, respondent s Nos.1 to
4 are directed to issue Emergency Travel Documents to the petitioner through Consulate General of Pakistan at UAE, without any delay so as to allow him to travel to Pakistan to face the criminal indictment.
MH/69/Bal. Petition allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.