Law: Exits From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Section: 2

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 2A,4,9,15,25

Law: Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010

Section: 2(1)(d)

Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Section: 9

(a) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9---Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules 2010, R.2(1)(d)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Chairman and directors of a company ("petitioners")---Alleged default in repayment of loan---Pending recovery suit---Placing name of alleged defaulter on Exit Control List (ECL) during pendency of recovery suit---Legality---Right to travel abroad---Scope---Mere fact that there was a claim against a person by a commercial bank, which was yet to be adjudicated upon, was no ground for placing name of such person on the Exit Control List or to deprive him of his fundamental right to travel abroad or restrict his right of free movement---No one could be termed a "defaulter" unless so declared by a court of competent jurisdiction---Courts established under the Banking laws were the sole authority to adjudicate upon the default in cases involving commercial loans---Recovery suit filed by the bank was pending, and no determination had been made by the Banking Court relating to status of petitioners as defaulters---No power vested with the commercial bank, the State Bank of Pakistan or for that matter the Federal Government to declare a person to be in default---Such power solely vested with the courts of competent jurisdiction---Any action on part of either the commercial bank or the State Bank of Pakistan, to determine that a customer was in default of an amount calculated by the bank and thereafter recommending placement of his name on the Exit Control List, was not only violative of settled principles of law but amounted to making the entire system of banking law and banking courts redundant---Petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard by giving them a notice---Besides petitioners had furnished adequate and sufficient securities to the lending bank to cover the entire alleged claim of the bank, if and when decreed---As such the lending bank was adequately covered in terms of its financial risk---Act of placing name of petitioners on the Exit Control List was without lawful authority and of…