This petition is directed against the order dated 2-2-1979, passed by respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate, Lahore detaining the petitioner, Mushtaq Anwar, local Chairman of the P. P. P. For a period of two months on the ground that he was taking part in anti-State activities and was instigating the other for the same.
2. The relevant record in support of the grounds, taken into considera--tion while passing the detention order, has been produced in the Court. Two reports were made against the detenu on 14- 1-1979 and 15-1-1979, respectively, by private persons. According to the first report, made by a resident of the same locality, the detenu, Mushtaq Anwar along with Ghulam Rasool and Shahbaz Khan was found talking to them at about noon time on 14-1-1979, that if Mr. Bhutto was awarded death sentence then they would cause immense damage to the public and private property in Lahore ; and if he was set free then they would take all the revenges. Similar report was made on 15-1-1979 by one Ghulam Muhammad of the same locality. He also heard the detenu, while sitting in Sara-i-Sultan in the company of Ghulam Rasool Shah, talking in the aforesaid terms.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite, therefore, the same cannot be made basis for detention. According to him, they are not even supported by any material.
4. I am afraid, the contention raised in this behalf is not correct. The relevant reports show him to have indulged in conversation prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. The complainants in both the cases heard him themselves while talking in the said terms in the company of certain persons, whose particulars have been given. The reports show the detenu and the aforesaid persons intending to cause large scale damage to the public and private property in case Mr. Bhutto was awarded death sentence. When such reports are submitted to the detaining authority, it is natural to influence its mind that if necessary order for detention is not passed the person concerned may act according to the report.
5. I am not in a position to make any observation with regard to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the detenu in both the reports, referred to above. However, according to law the jurisdiction of this Court, while examining the material considered by the detaining authority is not unlimited. When an order passed by an executive authority detaining a particular person is challenged by invoking extra ordi--nary jurisdiction of this Court, it is always by means of judicial review and cannot be treated as appeal or revision. The Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of administrative agency. The only function of the Court in such cases is to see whether the order of detention is reasonable and objective. It is also possible that there may be two different opinions with regard to sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds of detention being reasonable or otherwise, but if the material shows that the detaining authority could reasonably reach the conclusion already arrived at then the Court would not interfere with the order. The, only test in such cases is whether the detaining authority has applied its mind, with all reasonable care, in order to see that there is sufficient material for detention. The Court is not concerned whether the material is correct or not, unless it is otherwise shown on record. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Shamas Din v. Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Lahore (PLD 1979 Lah. 77).
In the circumstances discussed above, it cannot be said that the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner were vague and indefinite. The learned District Magistrate was justified in passing the detention order, against the petitioner.
6. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.