The petitioner feels aggrieved of the entry of his name in the list under 4th Schedule to Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, in terms of Section 11-EE of the said Act. An order for his detention was also passed by the same Authority i,e, the Home Secretary to the Government of the Punjab on 9.10.2004. The petitioner filed a representation. The Home Secretary heard the matter. He found his detention to be improper and ordered his release but observed that his name shall continue to remain in the said list.
2. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Home Secretary. He has stated that on the recommendation of the Provincial Police Officer, Special Branch, Punjab and DPO, Khanewal, he had placed his name in the said 4th Schedule. There is a report attached with the reply stating that three criminal cases stand registered against the petitioner is various Police Stations and that he is a member of proscribed organization.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned portion of the order runs against the very reasoning stated by the Home Secretary for ordering the release of his client. Further contends that his client is not a member of the said Organization and that the said cases were false and he has since been acquitted. Learned AAG under instruction from the Police Officer present with record does confirm that the petitioner has since been acquitted in all the three cases and that no other material is available against him. The learned AAG, however, had contended that a remedy is provided under the said Section 11-EE(3) of the said Act in the form of an appeal to the Provincial Government.
4. I have perused the writ petition, the reply and the documents placed on record by both the parties. I deem it appropriate the produce the following paras-4 and 5 of the order dated 20.11.2004:-- "4. A perusal of the record placed before me reveals prima facie that the detenu has no association with any religious organization fanning sectarianism in the society. There is nothing on record to prove any such linkage with any proscribed religious out fit. The DSP (Legal) has conceded to the effect that no documentary evidence is on record to prove that contention. It was because of this reason that no case whatsoever, was registered against him in the last three years.
5. I have carefully examined and considered the contentions of both the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the activities of the detenu are not prejudicial to public safety as well as public order. The representation of the petitioner is hereby accepted. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. However, his name shall continue to remain in the 4th Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997."
5. It will be seen that the Home Secretary is the competent person both under the said Section 11-EE of the said Act and Section 3 of the MPO. It is his own finding that the petitioner is not associated with any proscribed religious organization. In view of the said findings and the admitted fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases and further that no case is now pending against him and that no material is available to sustain the continuous entry of his name in the 4th Schedule, I find that the petitioner is entitled to the relief being claimed by him in this writ petition and it will not serve any purpose to ask him to file an appeal before the Provincial Government.
6. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and the respondents are directed to strike off the name of the petitioner from the 4th Schedule read with Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. No orders as to costs.