AFZAAL AHMED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Interior, Islamabad R

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AFZAAL AHMED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Interior, Islamabad R. 22(3)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Blacklisting of passport---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Maintainability---Alternate remedy, availability of---Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies bars writ where statutory remedy is adequate---However, doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, not absolute---Exceptions to doctrine of exhaustion of remedies---Structural absence or failure of remedy due to delay/inefficacy---Exception to the principle of exhaustion of remedies, discussed---Circumstances where Constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked, discussed --- Legal question which came up for determination before the High Court was as to 'whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was invokable in circumstances where the statutory remedy under R. 22(3)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021, though ostensibly available, was rendered nugatory due to denial of notice, hearing, and inordinate delay by the competent authority'---Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was booked in FIR No. 275 of 2011 and later joined trial proceedings---Due to non-availability of the star witness, the trial was adjourned sine die and the petitioner was released on bail---Despite not being an absconder, the petitioner's passport was blacklisted by the respondents without notice or lawful justification---The petitioner approached the High Court through constitutional petition seeking removal of his name from the blacklist/Passport Control List (PCL)---The respondent (Federation of Pakistan) argued that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy of applying before the Review Committee under R. 22(3)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021---It was revealed that although the petitioner had filed such an application, no notice was ever issued nor was a hearing provided to him---The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Held: The writ jurisdiction of the High Court, being an extraordinary remedy, could not be invoked as a panacea for all grievances, particularly where an equally efficacious, alternate, and adequate statutory remedy existed---The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies operated as a jurisdictional bar, precluding litigants from resorting to constitutional remedies under Art. 199 of the Constitution without first availing themselves of the statutory mechanisms expressly provided by law---The underlying rationale of this doctrine was to prevent litigants from circumventing established statutory frameworks, thereby ensuring that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court was not diluted into an ordinary appellate forum---However, where the statutory procedure for obtaining relief proves unduly cumbersome, or where the attendant delay and expense would either render the ultimate remedy ineffective or defeat its very purpose, then exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could be invoked---The "Doctrine of Exception" in constitutional intervention remains permissible in two scenarios: (1) structural absence or substantive nullity of alternative remedies, or (2) extraordinary circumstances where normally adequate remedies prove insufficient due to case-specific factors---This doctrine of exception operates as a narrowly tailored safety valve, requiring compelling justification to prevent abuse while ensuring access to justice when statutory channels fundamentally fail---Instant writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 (D.G. Immigration and Passport) to decide the application of the petitioner, within thirty (30) days.

AFZAAL AHMED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Interior, Islamabad R — 2025 CLC 1389 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC