Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: Const. P. 2741/2025 (SHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Parties: Const. P. 2741/2025 (D.B.) Mushtaq Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Const. P. 2741/2025 (SHC). In this matter between Const. P. 2741/2025 (D.B.) Mushtaq Ahmed and Federation of Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: CITATION: PARTIES: ORDER DATE: BENCH: A.F.R: ------------------------------------------------------------ Page 1 of 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Constitution Petition No.D-2741 of 2025 [Mushtaq Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan and others]
Before; Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi; Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro.
Petitioner : Mushtaq Ahmed through M/s . Amanullah and Ahsanullah Khan, Advocates. Respondents 1 to 4 : through Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Assistant Attorney General. Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025. Date of Order : 31.07.2025
J U D G M E N T Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J . Through instant petition , the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs: a) Direct the Respondent s to confirm whether any adverse record, travel ban, or blacklist entry exists against the petitioner. b) Direct the Respondents to remove the Petitioner's name from Ex it Control List, Passport Control List, Provisional National Identification List, Blacklist, and cancel his red warrant, if any. c) Direct the Respondents to ensure removal of any remaining restrictions, and facilitate the unimpeded travel of the Petitioner in accordance with law.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the Petitioner’s case as averred in the Petition are that the National Ac countability Bureau (NAB) filed Reference No 08 of 2021 Re “The State Versus Asif Ali Zardari and others ” before Accountability Court – III Islamabad (Trial Court), wherein Petitioner was nominated as one of the accused . Petitioner at the time of filing reference was residing abroad due to personal exigencies. He was shown as accused in the list of absconders. Learned Trial Court adopted due course of law to procure attendance of Petitioner, but nothing remained in the knowledge of Petitioner. During the course of said proceedings, Petitioner's name was placed on the Exit Control List (ECL), while red warrants were also issued against him . Petitioner voluntarily returned to Pakistan to face the trial and has since surrendered before Learned T rial Court. He has been regularly attending the proceedings and remains compliant with all court directions. Learned Trial Court, upon reassessment of the material, issued directions vide order dated 14.03.2024 to unblock Petitioner's CNIC, remove his name from ECL,
Page 2 of 16
de-freeze his bank accounts & cancel the red warrants previously issued. Those directions were reaffirmed by National Accountability Bureau's communication dated 27.08.2024. Subsequently, the Ministry of Interior through a formal Memorandum dated 18.10.20 24, directed the Respondents No.2 to 4 to remove Petitioner's name from ECL as confirmed by FIA, but his name was not yet removed from Interpol List and Passport Control List (PCL). Hence this petition.
3. On notic es, Respondent No 2 (Director General FIA) and Respondent No 4 (Director FIA) filed joint reply, wherein it was stated that the name of the Petitioner as per latest report of FIA Integrated Broader Management System (IBMS) at Jinnah International Airport Karachi dated 19.07.2025 was already removed by the concerned authority from ECL on 18.10.2024 but his name was included in PCL and Interpol List , and action in that regard was required on the part of Respondent No 3.
4. The Director General Immigration & Passports / Respondent No 3 filed separate reply, wherein it is stated, that the name of the petitioner was placed on PCL on 28.11.2022 on account of his due to illegal entry in Turkey followed by deportation, as conveyed by the Deputy Consul General/ HOC, CG of Pakistan, Istanbul vide its letter No. Con-3-6/2020 (September-2022) dated 05.10.2022. Petitioner’s name was placed on PCL as per p rovisions contained in Rule 21(1), 22(2)(b) & (c), 22(4) and Rule 23(2) of the Passports Rules 2021 (PR 2021) . The involvement of the petitioner in su ch undesirable activities was a source of defamation for the country, and a contributory element to factors which create employment hurdles for overseas Pakistani diaspora. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner will be considered for removal from "PCL" by the Review Committee upon completion of the stipulated period i.e. five years as per rules.
5. Mr Ahsanullah Khan Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the name of the Petitioner was placed on ECL, PCL and Interpol List pursuant to the directions of Learned Trial Court in reference No 08 of 2021. Petitioner surrendered before Learned Trial Court and filed an application for removal of his name from travel ban which was granted vide order dated 14.03.2024 and directed the Respondents to remove his name from ECL and cancelled the red warrants. He contended that pursuant to the directions of Learned Trial Court, the Respondent No.1 vide office memorandum dated 18.10.2024 removed his name from ECL , however, the Respondent s No. 2, 3 & 4 have long been single-handedly targeting the Petitioner by maintaining his name in adverse lists without any legal authority. He further contended that the Petitioner was not deported from Turkey but when he came to know about filing of reference, placing of his name in ECL and inactivation of passport, he approached Consulate General of Turkey, showing his willingness to return to Pakistan and face trials of the cases instituted against him, on his
Page 3 of 16
request he was issued Emergency Travel Documents (ETD) by the Competent Authority. He further argued that despite of clear and binding instructions from the Respondent No.1 and judicial orders from Learned Trial Court, the Petitioner continues to face unjustified restrictions in travelling abroad. This continued interference with his liberty is unwarranted, without lawful justification, and in contravention of the Constitution of Pakistan and are tantamount to violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner as to the freedom of movement. He prayed for allowing this Petition.
6. Mr Muhammad Akber Khan Learned Assistant General for Pakistan controverting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the name of the Petitioner was included in the ECL and Interpol List on the directions of Trial Court, but his name was entered in PCL due to his illegal travel history to Turkey which earned bad name for the Country. The Petitioner was involved in criminal activities and facing trial under the charges of corruption and corrupt practices and if his name is removed from PCL, he may abscond away. He contended that the Petition was not maintainable as an alternate and adequate remedy by way of appeal before Review Committee was available under the law for the relief claimed in the instant Petition. He prayed for the dismissal of instant petition.
7. Heard arguments, perused the material available on record
8. The Contention of the Respondents’ Counsel that the Petition under article 199 of the Constitution was not maintainable in presence of the alternate remedy available under PR 2021 to file a review petition before Review Committee. Perusal of Rule 22 envisaged that t he Ministry of Interior can place the name of any person in the PCL by exercising powers conferred under Rule 22 of Passports Rules 2021 under category A and Category B for a period of five years for refusal of the passports. Category A for the persons involved in anti -state activities and category B for the persons involved in other activities. In both the categories the names of those persons are placed who have been refused passport facilities. Rule 22 reads as under: 22. Passport control list (1) Federal Government is vested with the powers to regulate the departure from and entry into Pakistan and also visit to foreign countries of its citizens under the Act. (2) The Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain a PCL for placement of names and other record of individuals who have been refused passport facilities under these rules under category „A‟ and „B‟ respectively with the following description, namely: (a) under category „A‟, the names of those persons are placed who are involved in anti -state activities or whose visit t o foreign countries is considered to be prejudicial to the State interest, or, whose visit abroad is
Page 4 of 16
banned from security point of view. The names in this list shall be placed and removed by the Additional Secretary of the Division concerned; (b) under category „B‟, the names of those persons are placed who have been refused passport under these rules other than anti -state activities specified in clause (a). The names of persons included in the category under this clause may also be placed on the recommend ations of government agencies or departments; (c) normal period of retaining a person on the PCL is five years. However, a person may be kept on PCL even beyond five years provided the referring department or agency recommends for further retention having full justification in this regard. The Additional Secretary of the Division concerned in case of category „A‟ and Director General in case of category „B‟ may consider omission of name of any person from such list on appeal even before the normal period of five years; and (d) both the categories „A‟ and „B‟ are subject to periodical review by a Review Committee under sub -rule (3) in consultation with the relevant agency or department on whose recommendations the individual was placed on PCL; and (3) There shall be the following Review Committees for category „A‟ and „B‟ respectively, comprising: (a) Review Committee for Category „A‟: 1. Additional Secretary of the Division concerned 2. Director General Chairman Member 3. Representative of Security Agency 4. The dealing Deputy Secretary of the Division concerned Member 5. The dealing Section Officer of the Division concerned Member cum Secretary (b) Review Committee for Category „B‟: 1. Director General 2. Chairman Representative of Directorate of Intellige nce Bureau 3. The dealing Deputy Secretary of the Division concerned Member, (Member) 4. Representatives of Security Agencies Member 5. Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Directorate General Member cum Secretary. (4) In case a person falls under rule 21, and a passport already exists in his name in the database of Directorate General, such passport shall be inactivated to avoid issuance of subsequent passport and placed on the Integrated Border Management System (IBMS) for refusal of immigration services. Immigration officer shall impound passport of such individual and forward it to the Directorate General till delisting from the IBMS category. (5) A foreigner may be placed on foreigners control list (FCL) for restricting visa issuance and extension, on the request of Security Agencies or on the orders of the Division concerned.
Page 5 of 16
9. Bare reading of the provisions of Rule 22 makes it clear that names of the persons can be placed under PCL under category A and B for a period of five years. A Review Committee to review the decisions for placing the names of persons under category A and B has been formulated under the law having composition of various agencies / representatives under the Chair of Additional Secretary for Category A and Director General, Immigration & Passports for Category B. The Review Committee is empowered to consider cases for the omission of name of any person from such list before the normal period of five years. This Rule clearly provides a remedy of appeal and review to the aggrieved, in such an eventuality , it is always appropriate that aggrieved person should first prefer an appeal or review if available under the law instead of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ jurisdiction of this Court is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked as panacea for all grievances, particularly where an equally efficacious, alternative, and adequate statutory remedy exists. The doctrine of exception of remedies operates as jurisdictional bar precluding litigant from resorting to Constitutional remedies under Article -199 of the Constitution without first availing themselves of a statutory mechanism expressly provided by law. The underlying rational of this doctrine is to prevent litigants from circumventing established statutory frameworks thereby ensuring that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not diluted into an ordinary appellate forum.
10. The theory of an alternative remedy under Article -199 of the Constitution hinges upon two core considerations substantive sufficiency and comparative efficacy. A remedy cannot deem adequate if it fails to provide relief matching the nature and extent of the grievance. The doctrine of exception in constitutional intervention remains permissible in two scenarios , firstly; for the s tructural absence or substantive nullity of alternative remedies and secondly ; the extraordinary circumstances where normally adequate remedies prove insufficient due to case specific factors. The exception doctrine operates as a narrowly tailored, requiring compelling justification to prevent abuse while ensuring access to justice when statutory channel fundamentally fail. Where the statutory procedure of obtaining relief proves unduly cumbersome, or where the attendant delay and expense would either render the alternative remedy inefficacious or defeat its very purpose then exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article -199 of the Constitution can be invoked.
11. Careful examination of Rule 22 brings a prompt query in the mind that Additional Secretary Min istry of Interior in the case of Category A and Director General of Passports and Immigration in the case of Category B are empowered to place the names of persons under PCL. For the purposes of periodical review of the names of the persons placed in PCL and in case of an appeal preferred by an aggrieved person, the Review Committee headed by the same persons have been formulated. This formulation of the
Page 6 of 16
Review and Appeal forums offends the well settled notion of law that “No one can become the judge of own cause”, but under the provisions of Rule 22 Additional Secretary and Director General Immigration and Passports have been appointed as the judges of their own cause. For this sole reason the remedy of review and appeal provided under Rule 22 of PR 2021 cannot be deemed to be an adequate and efficacious, therefore, the actions taken by the respective authorities are always amenable to judicial review under the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under article 199 of the Constitution.
12. In the case in hand, the name of the Petitioner is borne on the PCL on account of his alleged entry in Turkey, he was already in possession of the passport which was rendered inactive pursuant to the placement of his name under ECL, therefore, an action under Rule 21 of PR, 2021 was initiated. Rule 22(4) provided for placing the name of a person on PCL when he is accused of violating the provisions of Rule 2 . The name of the person is included under the IBMS. The provisions of Rule 22 provide a remedy of appeal before Review Committee, when the name has been placed in PCL under category A and B but did not provide any remedy of appeal or review when the name is placed on PCL under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 22. Record further transpired that the Petitioner has approached the Respondents time and again by filing applications (available at page 29) for removal of travel restrictions but without fruits. Since the name of the Petitioner has been placed under PCL by the Competent Authority in terms of Rule 22(4) and the said authority comes within the definition of a person discharging its functions in connection with the affairs of Federation therefore actions on the part of the authority were amenable to judicial review of this Court in term of the powers conferred under article 199 of the Constitution, eve n otherwise the issue in the instant petition involved the question of fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under articles 4, 9, 10 – A and 15 of the Constitution and powers of this Court to seek enforcement of fundamental rights have been made abridged. The contention of Learned AAG, for Pakistan stands repelled and writ Petition under article 199 of the Constitution seeking judicial review is held to be maintainable against the action of authority taken under Rule 22 of PR 2021.
13. This principle has been inevitably affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Sher Afgan Niazi v. Ali S Habib reported as 2011 SCMR 1813 wherein Honorable Apex Court has laid principles to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court, it was held as under: “9. The learned High Court will have to consider in each case the following tests to be applied to determine the adequacy of the relief:-- (i) If the relief available through the alternative remedy in its nature or extent is not what is necessary to give the requisite relief, the alternative remedy is not an "other adequate remedy" within the meaning of Article 199.
Page 7 of 16
(ii) If the relief available through the alternative remedy, in its nature and extent, is what is necessary to give the requisite relief, the 'adequacy' of the alternative remedy must further be judged, with reference to a comparison of the speed, expense or convenience of obtaining that relief through the alternative remedy, with the speed, expense or convenience of obtaining it under Article 199. But in making this comparison those factors must not be taken into account which would themselves alter if the remedy under Article 199 were used as a substitute for the other remedy. (iii) In practice the following steps may be taken:- (a) Formulate the grievance in the given case, as a generalized category; (b) Formulate the relief that is necessary to redress that category of grievance; (c) See if the law has prescribed any remedy that can redress that category of grievance in that way and to the required extent; (d) If such a remedy is prescribed the law contemplates that resort must be had to that remedy; (e) If it appears that the machinery established for the purposes of that remedy is not functioning properly, the correct step to take will be a step that is calculated to ensure, as far as lies in the power of the Court, that that machinery begins to function as it should. It would not be correct to take over the function of that machinery. If the function of another organ is taken over, that other organ will atrophy, and the organ that takes over, will break clown under the strain; (f) If there is no other remedy that can redress that category of grievance in that way and to the required extent, or if there is such a remedy but conditions are attached to it which for a particular category of cases would neutralise or defeat it so as to deprive it of its substance, the Court should give the requisite relief under Article 199; (g) If there is such other remedy, but there is something so special in the circumstances of a given case that the other remedy which generally adequate, to the relief required for that category of grievance, is not adequate to the relief that is essential in the very special category to which that case belongs, the Court should give the required relief under Article 199. If the procedure for obtaining the relief by some other proceedings is too cumbersome or the relief cannot be obtained without delay and expense, or the delay would make the grant of the relief meaningless this court would not hesitate to issue a writ if the party applying for it is found entitled to it, simply because the party could have chosen another course to obtain the relief which is due." (Ibrahim T.M. Ltd. v. Federation of
Page 8 of 16
Pakistan PLD 1989 Lah. 47, Allah Ditta v. Muhammad Saeed Vatoo PLD 1961 Lah. 479, Shamas Din and Bros. v. Income -tax and Sales Tax Officer PLD 1959 Lah. 955, Khaliq Najam Co. v. Sales -Tax Officer PLD 1959 Lahore 915).”
14. Adverting to the issue under challenge, the s canning of the record revealed that Petitioner was nominated as accused in Reference No 08 of 2021, and shown in the list of absconders. The Petitioner was reported residing abroad therefore the proclamation issued under section 87 and 88 of CrPC was issued. When Petitioner failed to surrender, Learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2021 directed the authorities concerned to block CNIC, freeze bank accounts, place name on ECL, and issue red warrants for arrest of the Petitioner. Record further revealed that Petitioner surrendered before Learned Trial Court on 27.03.2023 and has been in attendance since then while on bail and without any complaint of misuse of concession . Petitioner filed an application for removal of his name from ban lists, Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application vide order dated 14.03.2024. Operative part of the order reads as under: “Perusal of the record goes to evince that when the instant reference was investigated and filed in the Court , the Petitioner was abroad and he was served upon his given residence in Pakistan. The exact address of the accused has also not been reflected in the sate of I.O Ahmed Saeed Wazir, Deputy Director NAB, which he got recorded on 09.09.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation of the accused was executed in accordance with law. The accused has already surrendered before the Court with the assurance that he would appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing and in such eventuality especially where the non -bailable warrants of the arrest of the accused have already been cancelled by the predecessor Court, there seems no necessity to leave the Petitioner under jeopardized condition unnecessarily. Virtually the order passed on 09.09.2021 has become infructuous after the passage of order dated 27.03.2023 cancelling the non-bailable warrants of arrest of the accused/Petitioner. For what has been discussed above the application in hand stands accepted and disposed of accordingly. Resultantly, the NAB is directed to get the CNIC of the Petitioner unblocked, get his name removed from ECL, get his account be de-freezed, get his red warrant of arrest cancelled accordingly.”
15. Perusal of the reply filed by the FIA reflected that order of the Learned Trial Court to the extent of unblocking of CNIC, de -freezing of bank accounts, and removal of name from ECL was implemented but his name s till existed in the PCL and Interpol list.
Page 9 of 16
Since the name of the Petitioner was placed on Interpol List in compliance to the proclamation issued under section 87 & 88 CrPC, and upon arrival and surrender of Petitioner before Learned Trial Court, the red warrants issued for his arrest became automatically infructuous because the purpose of issuance of Red Warrants / Red Notices was to effect the arrest of the Petitioner through the assistance of the International Police (Interpol), and Petitioner has already surrendered before Learned Trial Court, therefore the presence of name of the Petitioner on the Interpol List is not required any more and Ministry of Interior should have done the needful for the removal of his name from Interpol List on his surrender before Learned Trial Court.
16. Now, PCL remains the question for adjudication of th is Court. Per contention of the Respondent No 3 on receipt of the report from Consulate General of Pakistan in Istanbul, Turkey dated 05.10.2022 that the Petitioner was issued ETD for travelling back to Pakistan, the name of the Petitioner was placed on PCL on accusation of his illegal entry in Turkey in the month of September 2022.
17. The careful perusal of the rule 22 of PR 2021 evinced that two different categories have been set forth for inclusion of the name of a person under PCL. Category A for the persons accused of anti -state activities and Category B for the persons other than those involved in anti-state activities. The Petitioner is not accused of involvement in anti -state activities; his name has not been placed under category A or B because a passport already stands issued in his name. his passport has been inactivated as his name was born on ECL. Under sub rule 4 of Rule 22 the name of a person is placed on PCL for violation of Rule 21 (1) of PR 2021. For the sake of reference rule 21 PR 2021 is reproduced below 21. Refusal of passport. A citizen of Pakistan may be refused issuance of passport for the time being on any of the following grounds, namely:…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.