This petition is directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Faisalabad on 3-2-1979 under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 detaining Rana Subhan Ali for a period of three months mainly on the ground that he decided to launch a campaign in the country to get Mr. Bhutto released and prepared a scheme to damage the public and private property so as to put pressure upon the Government and further that he and some of his companions whose names are given in ground No. 2 gathered in the house of Muhammad Amin in Mohallah Douglispura at about 10 a m. And prepared a scheme that if Mr. Bhutto was not released then they would start damaging the public and private property and create law and order situation in the country.
2. Necessary record in support of the grounds of detention has been produced in the Court. The same has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The first report was made on 7-1-1979 by Muhammad Yousuf son of Fazal Din to the effect that when he was passing by the house of Muhammad Amin in Mohallah Douglispura at about 10 a.m. He saw the detenu, Taj Din, Muhammad Salim and Maulvi Manzoor-ul-Haq sitting in his house. Muhammad Amin was telling the aforesaid persons that if Mr. Bhutto was not released by the Government then they would start a campaign and cause damage to the public and private property. The aforesaid persons including the detenu assured Muhammad Amin that they would parti--cipate in that campaign along with him. The next report was made on 18-1-1979 by Umardraz to the effect that when he was passing by the house of Muhammad Yaqoob, Depot holder at about 11 p.m. He heard some voices coming from the drawing room of his house. The door of the house was closed from inside and Muhammad Salim Awan, Subhan Ali, Qazi Shafiq Ahmad and Manzoor Hussain Bitalvi were sitting inside and discussing political affairs. They were also discussing as to how and in what manner subversive activities should be started. Muhammad Salim said that if Mr. Bhutto would not be released unless sacrifices were offered and huge campaign for his release is launched. He further said that unless that workers of the party come on the roads and start agitation the Government would not release Mr. Bhutto. The Pakistan People's Party workers should take oath that they would sacrifice their lives for his sake. The detenu Rana Subhan Khan and Noor Fatima a lady worker of the P. P. P., both supported Muhammad Salim and assured him that they would act according to his wishes. They said that the campaign would be started by putting the houses on fire, by damaging the bridges and railway lines so that the Government may feel the pressure and release Mr. Bhutto.
3. Both the reports referred to above dated 3-1-9979 and 7-1-1979 respectively have been considered in Writ Petitions Nos. 806 of 1979 and 1190 of 1979 m relation to the detenus, Noor Fatima and Muhammad Amin respectively. Both the writ petitions. Have been dismissed mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the aforesaid reports are not vague and indefinite. The grounds of detention are to be read in conjunction with the relevant material which has been produced in the Court. All the grounds pertain to specific prejudicial activities indulged in by the petitioner on parti--cular dates and places. In the relevant material the names of the persons whom the petitioner talked to in the aforesaid language have been given.
In the present case the petitioner was found talking to various persons whose particulars have been given in the reports in the aforesaid terms prejudicial to public peace and maintenance of law and order. The possi--bility that the petitioner may have indulged in such prejudicial activites if not detained: cannot be ruled out.
4. I am not in a position to make any observation with regard to truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the detenu in the reports referred to above. The jurisdiction of this Court while examining the material con--sidered by the detaining authority is not unlimited. The only function of the Court in the present proceeding which is neither appeal nor revision but a petition for judicial review is to see whether the order of detention is reasonable and objective. The Court is not concerned whether the material is correct or not unless otherwise shown on the face of the record.
If the material shows that the detaining authority could reasonably reach the con--clusion already arrived at then the Court would not interfere with the order. The only test in such cases is that whether the detaining authority has applied its mind with all reasonable care in order to see that there is sufficient material for detention. Reference in this behalf can be made to Shamas Din v.
Deputy Martial Law Administrator I, Lahore and two others (PLD 1979 Lah. 74).
5. The perusal of the record shows that there was sufficient material before the detaining authority and the conclusion arrived at is quite reason--able. That being the position the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.