LHC seeks reply from NAB, others on Maryam's plea

• The AAG submitted that the cabinet had decided the matter and Maryam's representation had been rejected.
• He further submitted that the petition had become infructuous after the government's decision.
• Maryam Nawaz through her petition submitted that her name was placed on the ECL through a memorandum.

LAHORE: A Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench on Wednesday sought a detailed reply from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others on a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz for removal of her name from the Exit Control List (ECL) and return of passport till January 21.

The court also sought a reply from the federal government over delay in deciding representation of Maryam Nawaz for removing her name from the ECL.

The bench headed by Justice Muhammad Tariq Abbasi heard the petition filed by the PML-N vice president, wherein Advocate Azam Nazir Tarar represented the petitioner whereas Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A Khan appeared on behalf of the government.

As the proceedings resumed, the court observed that no reply had been sought from the respondents on the petition yet.

To which, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter was referred by the previous bench to the federal government for deciding the same in seven days period.

However, the government did not make any decision the issue for three-four weeks and it was learnt on Tuesday that the government had rejected the representation.

At this, the AAG submitted that the cabinet had decided the matter and Maryam's representation had been rejected.

He further submitted that the petition had become infructuous after the government's decision.

However, the court, after hearing detailed arguments of the parties, issued notices to the Bureau and others and sought their reply till Jan 21.

The court also sought a reply from the federal government over delay in deciding the Maryam's representation.

Maryam Nawaz through her petition submitted that her name was placed on the ECL through a memorandum.

She submitted that the step was taken without issuance of any notice and affording any opportunity for hearing to her.

She submitted that the step was not only against the law but a violation of her fundamental rights.

She submitted that her father had been shifted abroad due to his critical health and she was under stress on account of her inability to be with him in this our of need.

Maryam had pleaded with the court for declaring the memorandum illegal besides directions for removal of her name from the ECL.

The bench was also requested to grant her a "one-time permission" to travel abroad for six weeks from the date of departure and release of her passport.