The Peshawar High Court has declined to order authorities to remove the name of a private housing scheme’s project director from the Exit Control List (ECL) regarding an alleged fraud case. A bench composed of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Wiqar Ahmad dismissed Prof Abdul Hameed Jan’s petition from Professor Model Town-II Peshawar seeking removal from the ECL, noting that grievances of affected individuals are pending with the high court.
The court found the petitioner’s claim of addressing the affected people’s grievances contradicted by records and facts, thus deeming the petition meritless. The National Accountability Bureau Khyber Pakhtunkhwa initiated an inquiry under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) into corruption allegations against the petitioner and others concerning the Professor Model Town-II Peshawar housing project, accusing them of deceiving the public.
After receiving 51 claims regarding the scheme, the NAB discovered that the petitioner and partners collected Rs38.461 million, promising developed plots to allottees but failing to deliver. Despite the petitioner’s assertion of resolving grievances, the court found evidence contrary to his claim.
In 2020, the high court placed the petitioner’s name on the ECL upon the NAB’s request. The current petition claimed satisfaction of all claimants by the petitioner’s firm, but the court found the assertions unsubstantiated. The petitioner’s counsel argued that amendments to the NAO excluded the project from NAB’s jurisdiction, but the court observed that the matter required reconsideration in light of a Supreme Court ruling.
Affected persons filed applications to intervene during the petition’s pendency, which the court accepted. Counsel for the victims alleged significant fraud by the petitioner and other accused, asserting that they unlawfully obtained funds under false promises of providing amenities and developed plots.
The court noted that although NAB’s jurisdiction was excluded by the 2022 amendment, the matter required reconsideration based on a Supreme Court judgment. The NAB stated that all referred cases were reopened for review, and the present case was under consideration in light of the apex court’s decision.
