ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-This petition was allowed by us by a short order dated 1st April, 1979 for reasons to be recorded later on. Following are the reasons for the aforesaid decision.
2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the detention of one Salahuddin son of Allah Warrayo Memon, an advocate of Hala who was ordered to be detained for three months by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector H, Hyderabad under M. L.
0. No. 12 with effect from 2nd February, 1979. By order dated 13th February, 1979 this Court had called upon the Advocate-General to produce the record of this case. On 25th March, 1979 Mr. Abbas Farooqui, learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced before us what appeared to be plain, unsigned and simple copies of the alleged material which was relied upon for passing the impugned order. Consequently a fresh direction was given by the Court for production of the original file as well as the minutes sheets. When the case came for final hearing on 1st April, 1979, learned counsel for the respondents placed before us the Memorandum of -grounds of detention dated 24th February, 1979 as well as the minutes sheet. The summary of the allegations contained in the minutes sheet may be set out as under :- " I . According to the intelligence reports, placed for your perusal, it appears that Mr. Salahuddin son of Allah Warrayo is very active and his activities are prejudicial to the purpose for which Martial Law has been proclaimed and maintenance of law and order. He was the main figure to organise reception procession, against the existing M. L. R. Which allows only limited political activities, when Miss Benazir Bhutto visited Hata on 15th February, 1978. He is also reported to have created parochial feelings and criticised the M. L. Government tor sake of it. He was reported to be the person behind the Warris of Deh Mubarik Wah, and was instigating them to create law and order situation for the Government.
2. The above reports clearly indicate of intentions of Mr. Salahuddin son of Allah Warrayo. Under the circumstances if he is set at liberty, he is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the purpose for which Martial Law has been proclaimed and the public safety. It is therefore recommended that he may be detained under Martial Law Order 12.
1-2-79 (Sd.) S.
0. (ML)."
Upon perusal of this summary the Detaining Authority observed that he is of "the opinion that the detention of Mr. Salahuddin is essential for the purpose of the maintenance, of law and order."
Along with the minutes sheet is an unsigned document entitled as "Material warranting arrest of Salahuddin son of Allah Warrayo, Advocate under M. L.
0. 12." The next document forming the alleged material is what is described as the bio-data of the detenu giving the details of his activities and is signed by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Southern Region, Hyderabad (undated).
3. Mr, Nasim Farooqui first assailed the order on the ground that .The objects mentioned in the detention order have no co-relation with the purpose for which the detention order was passed as reflected from the minutes sheet. He argued that whereas the order was passed for the purpose of maintenance of law and order, the detention order speaks of entirely different object for which the same was passed. It may be mentioned that the detention order expressly refers to three grounds as the object for which the detention was ordered, namely ; (1) to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial for the purpose for which Martial law has been proclaimed, (ii) the public safety, and (iii) the efficient conduct of Martial law. It was contended that this clearly indicates the lack of application of mind by the Detaining Authority. Reliance was placed on Chender Bhon v.
Government of Sind (1). It was held in this case that the grounds furnished in support of a detention order disclosed the reasons which led the Government to make the order of detention and it is open to the detenu to show that the reasons disclosed or any of them are alien for the purpose of statute and, therefore, outside its ambit. This judgment, however, is not directly on the point urged although as will be seen hereinafter, it is relevant to the subsequent contention of the learned counsel. The next judgment reported as Begum Nusrat Bhutto v.
(1) PLD 1973 Kar. 241 Deputy Martial Law Administrator (1) is pettinent to the argument advanced. At page 104 of the report Mohammad Siddiq, J. Observed : "There are several purposes mentioned in paragraph 2 of C. M. L.
0. 12 and action can be justified for preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to any or some of such purposes. In other words, the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu must relate to such purposes. In the absence of such purposes, it is difficult to read the mind of the Detaining Authority as to which such purpose or matter influenced him to pass the detention order.
Thus, it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to clearly mention in the impugned order tile purpose or purposes which can be connected with the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu.
The D. M. L. A's order is completely silent on this point and there is no mention of any such purpose in it. It is not denied that preventing a person from acting in any prejudicial manner is relatable to one or some of the purposes mentioned in paragraph 2. If the purpose itself is not mentioned, then it will directly affect the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu. It may be mentioned that "S. 0.-1" in his minute had mentioned only one such purpose, while Lt.-Col. Sher Ahmed in his order (Annexure 'E') mentioned two such purposes. The other natural consequence which directly flows from the omission of purposes in the impugned order, is that the detenu cannot make a proper representation under paragraph 4 of C. M. L.
0. 12."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not brought to our notice any contrary view of the law. In the minutes sheet produced before us the concerned S.
0. (M. L.) mentioned the purpose for which the detention order was sought as the apprehension that the detenu will act in a manner prejudicial to the purpose for which Martial Law has been proclaimed and the public safety. No mention was' made of any likelihood of interference in the efficient conduct of Martial Law. As already pointed out the Detaining.Authority, on the other hand, only mentioned the purpose as the maintenance of law and order. There is, therefore, a patent disparity between the purposes for which the detention order was passed as expressed in the order itself and minute recorded by the Detaining Authority.
5. It was next contended that the grounds of detention also do not satisfy the test of reasonableness laid down for the validity of the detention order. In the memo of grounds briefly the following instances of the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu are mentioned':-
(a) On 15th February, 1978 the detenu was alleged to have received along with others Miss Benazir Bhutto at the residence of Makhdoom Talibul Moula and a public meeting was held at the residence in which the detenu participated.
(b) On 27th February, 1978 the detenu is alleged to have issued a Press-release which was published in daily "Hilal-e-Pakistan- on the next day in which the detenu had compared the present conditions with that of East Pakistan and also made allegations against the Authorities of discrimination between the masses of Punjab in the matter of detention of top leadership etc.
(1) PLD 1979 Lah. 91
(c) According to a secret report in connection with a strike of Haris of Deh Mubarik Wah and Saidabad, according to which the detenu was contacting the students belonging to Hala Taluka and instigating them to seek assistance of leftist student organizations and fueling fire of protest hunger strike to continue. It was alleged that the students of Hala were trying to approach Makhdoom Rafiquzzaman through the detenu to support the cause of Haris.
(d) Reference to informatiOn report dated 1st August, 1978, relating to the dispute of Haris with their zamindars resulting in hunger strike and that the matter was referred to an Enquiry Officer, it was alleged that the Haris were pacified on an assurance given to them by the D. C. Hyderabad but on account of instigation of several persons including the detenu resentment prevailed among the Haris.
(e) According to an information report dated 3rd January, 1979 it was learnt that the P. P. P. Workers leaders and students affiliated with S. P. S. F. Would organize Quran Khawani and special prayers for the release of Mr. Bhutto while celebrating his birthday on 5th January, 1979. They would also perform opening ceremony of Mr. Bhutto's Portrait, cutting of cakes and distribution of sweetmeats.
Prayers for long life of Mr. Bhutto would also be made at the shrine of Shah Bhittai and other places.
It was alleged that the detenu was one of the prominent leaders who had to organize Quran Khawani and special prayers.
6. Mr. Nasim Farooqui argued that ground No. (e) which is stated to be one of the reasons leading to the passing of the impugned order is a totally innocent act as Quran Khawani and prayers cannot under any circumstances be held in an Islamic State as a prejudicial act. As regards other grounds he argued that the alleged instances contained in grounds Nos. (a) and (b) have no proximity with the conditions prevailing on the date of impugned order and it is not shown that in the intervening period the detenu had committed any overt acts of prejudicial nature. As to grounds Nos. (c) and (d) also he relied on the same arguments, as well as that the grounds lack in particulars and the alleged involvement of the detenu was described in the vague and unspecific terms. In support of his submissions learned counsel referred us to the case of Khadija Bhabha v.
Province of Sind (1) in which much more serious allegations of the nature alleged against the present detenu were made and the Division Bench held them to be vague, indefinite and completely lacking in particulars, and consequently declared the detention illegal.
7. Mr. Abbas Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the past conduct of the detenu can be taken into consideration if there are fresh overt acts as a valid reason for a detention order. However, that is not the position in the present case. The only overt act attributed to the detenu after 1st August, 1978 is the allegation that the detenu was one of the persons who had to organize Quran Khawani and special prayers on 5th January, 1979. Apart from the fact that we agree that the alleged act does not fall within the ambit of prejudicial acts relevant to C. M. L.
0. 12, it is significant that the detention order was passed after the proposed date of 5th January, 1979 and there is nothing in the grounds whether
(1) PLD 1973 Kar. 421 the detenu did indulge, in any illegal or prejudicial acts on the aforesaid date. We have already referred to the case of Chander Bhan and applying the principles laid down, we hold that ground No. (e) is not relevant t C. M. L.
0.
12. It was held in Zarina Gauhar v. Province of Sind (1) that if one reason stated for an Order of detention is bad the whole order is necessarily bad. The alleged material produced in support of the detention order is more or less a re-production of the grounds which hav already been analysed. We are, therefore, of the view that the grounds being vague and one ground not being relevant to the statute under which the order of detention has been passed, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
8. In the result, we declare the detention of the detenu as unlawful and order that he shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained under any other case. .
(1) PLD 1976 Kar. 1257