IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD.  
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB. 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 781 AND 896 OF 2016 AND C. M. A. NO. 
1986 OF 2016 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 A/W CIVIL 
PETITIONS NO. 207-K TO 208-K OF 2016. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 07.03.2016 passed by the High Court of 
Sindh at Karachi in C. P. No. D-7769 of 2015).  
 
The Federation of Pakistan through Collector of Customs,  
Model Custom Collectorate, Islamabad.  
(CPs. NO. 781 & 896/16 & CMA. 1986/16 IN CP. 781/16) 
 
Sindh Education for Institution Development Society thr. its 
General Secretary, Karachi.  
(CP. 207-K OF 2016) 
 
Mahboob Ali Abro.  
(CP. 208-K OF 2016)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Ayyan Ali and others.   
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     (in all cases)  
 
 
For the petitioner(s) : 
Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
(in CP.781/16) 
 
Syed Nayyab Hussain Gardezi, 
Standing counsel.  
(in CP.896/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo. (in CPs. 207-K to 208-K of 2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
Shahid Orakzai, in person. 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA.1986/16) 
 
For the respondent(s): Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
(in CP.781/16) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
06.04.2016 (Judgment Reserved). 
 
J U D G M E N T  
 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.-  These petitions for leave to 
appeal have arisen out of the judgment dated 07.03.2016 of a 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 781 AND 896 OF 2016 AND C. M. A. NO. 1986 OF 2016 IN 
 CIVIL PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 207-K TO 208-K OF 2016. 
 
2
Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, whereby it allowed the 
Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the Ministry 
of Interior to immediately remove the name of respondent No. 
1 from Exit Control List (ECL) and allow her to travel abroad if 
she so desires.  
2. 
 
The learned ASC for the petitioners contended that 
where the respondent is charged under Section 156(1)(viii) read 
with Section 2(s)(ii) of Customs Act, Section 8 of FER Act and 
Section 3(1) of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950, removal 
of her name from the ECL would amount to letting her off for 
good notwithstanding the case against her is still pending in the 
Customs Court. The learned ASC next contended that where 
Section 3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 
provided alternate remedy by way of review, resort could not 
be had to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The learned ASC next contended 
that it is the prerogative of the Government to place the name 
of any person on the ECL if he or she is involved in corruption 
and misuse of power and authority causing loss to the 
government’s funds or property; economic crimes where large 
government’s funds have been embezzled or institutional frauds 
have been committed; acts of terrorism or its conspiracy, 
heinous crimes threatening national security; case of key 
directors of a firm, in default of tax or liabilities of not less than 
ten million rupees; case of two or more key or main directors of 
a firm, in default of loan or liabilities exceeding one hundred 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 781 AND 896 OF 2016 AND C. M. A. NO. 1986 OF 2016 IN 
 CIVIL PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 207-K TO 208-K OF 2016. 
 
3
million rupees; any case in which his or her name has been 
forwarded by the Registrar of a High Court, Supreme Court of 
Pakistan or Banking Court; or drug trafficking, therefore, the 
High Court could not have interfered therewith.  
3. 
 
As against that learned ASC appearing on behalf of 
the respondent contended that the movement of the 
respondent, who has been charged under Section 156(1)(viii) 
read with Section 2(s)(ii) of Customs Act, Section 8 of FER Act 
and Section 3(1) of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950, could 
not be prohibited by placing her name on the ECL that too 
when she has not committed any of the crimes listed in Rule 2 of 
the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010. The learned ASC 
went on to argue that remedy of review could not be insisted 
upon when it is inadequate and even illusory, nor could the 
remedy granted by the High Court through a petition under 
Article 199 of the Constitution be recalled or rescinded on this 
score. The learned ASC to support his contention placed 
reliance on the case of Muhammad Aslam Vs. Senior Member 
(Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (2004 SCMR 
1587). He lastly contended that mere pendency of a criminal 
case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting the movement 
of any citizen in contravention of the provisions contained in 
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  
4. 
 
We have gone through the entire record carefully 
and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs for the 
parties.  
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 781 AND 896 OF 2016 AND C. M. A. NO. 1986 OF 2016 IN 
 CIVIL PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 207-K TO 208-K OF 2016. 
 
4
5. 
 
Respondent No. 1, no doubt, has been charged in a 
case mentioned above which is still pending adjudication in the 
competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a criminal case 
cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has 
never been the case of the petitioners that the respondent is 
involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the Exit from 
Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in 
particular, inasmuch as she has not been charged to have 
embezzled 
a 
large 
government’s 
funds 
or 
committed 
institutional fraud. In the absence of any such allegations, we 
don’t think the respondent’s movement could be prohibited 
under the Ordinance or the Rules mentioned above. We, 
however, don’t agree with the argument of the learned Sr. ASC 
for the respondent that remedy by way of review is inadequate 
or illusory because such argument would tend to defeat the 
letter and spirit of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Such argument 
would also tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Article 199 of 
the Constitution which provides that “a High Court may, if it is 
satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on 
the application of any aggrieved party, make an order.” The 
words used in the Article cannot be lightly ignored or 
overlooked. Though we don’t feel inclined to recall and rescind 
the relief granted to the respondent by the High Court on this 
score at this stage, when we don’t see any tenable ground for 
prohibiting the movement of the respondent, all the same we 
would not approve of bypassing a forum provided by law. 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 781 AND 896 OF 2016 AND C. M. A. NO. 1986 OF 2016 IN 
 CIVIL PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 207-K TO 208-K OF 2016. 
 
5
6. 
 
The apprehension of the learned ASC for the 
petitioners that where the respondent has been charged for 
committing serious offences as mentioned above, removal of 
her name from ECL would amount to letting her off for good, is 
misconceived as despite removal of her name from ECL, her 
attendance could still be enforced or dispensed with by the 
Trial Court in conformity with the relevant provisions of the 
Cr.P.C.   
7. 
 
For the reasons discussed above, these petitions 
being without merit are dismissed and the leave asked for is 
refused.  
    
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 13.04.2016. 
 
 
JUDGE 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
M. Azhar Malik