1. ' This petition is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 1979 passed by the District Magistrate, D. G. Khan under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, detaining the petitioner for a period of three months.
2. Necessary record of the case has been produced and perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The grounds of detention which were served upon the petitioner within time show that the petitioner was initially involved in a case under sections 302/307, 148/149, P. P. C.
2. Registered against him vide F. I. R. No, 110 dated 22nd April, 1977. It is not indicated in the grounds as to what happened to this case. He is alleged to have made a speech on 27th of August, 1978 at a meeting held at Block '13', D. G. Khan City, spreading hatred and disaffection amongst various sections of the public. Ground No, 3 indicates that he was previously detained by the District Administration in order to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner but he failed to behave in a proper manner. He presided over a meeting of P. P. P. Workers at his own residence on 23rd January, 1979 at 3.45 p. m. Where two of the speakers Amir Ali Shah and Manzoor Ahmad both delivered objectionable speeches. The petitioner also addressed the meeting demanding from the Government that no further atrocities, should be committed against the P. P. P. The relevant record also contained two daily secret reports as mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of detention.
3. As mentioned above a meeting was held on 26th August, 1978 at the residence of the petitioner which was addressed by Manzoor Ahmad and Sh. Abdul Latif in addition to him. They both criticised the conduct of the present Government in forming the interim Government with the help of certain political parties. They said that in the circumstances prevailing at present no reliance can be placed upon the Government in power. The petitioner, however, made a provocative speech inciting class hatred. He said that the poor people were at war with the rich and the capitalists.
4. Since the P. P. P. Was organizing the poor people, therefore, it would continue to eliminate the rich and the captalists and would enable the poor people to get rid of this class. He said that the agitation started in March/April, 1979 in the name of Nizam-i-Mustafa was actually run by the Capitalists who purchased certain mullas and thus deceived the people at large. The said Mullas never wanted restoration of the democracy and that was why they had joined the present Government. He said that the P. P. P. Was an organized party at country level. The opposition consisting of nine parties was totally divided and defeated but still it had joined the present Government. He complained that the P. P. P. Workers were being involved in false cases.
5. ' According to the second report another meeting was held on 23rd January, 1979 at about 3-45 p. m. Under the Chairmanship of the petitioner at his own residence. It was addressed by Zubair Younas, Amir Ali Shah, Manzoor Ahmad and the petitioner. Mr. Zubair Younus complained against huge expenses being incurred on the publicity campaign carried on at T. V. And Radio against the P. P. P. He said that all this money belonged to the nation and was being wasted for nothing. He criticised the conduct and policies of General Zia-ul-Haq in not holding general elections within three months from the date of imposition of martial law. He appealed to the. P.P.P. Workers to unite.
6. Similar speech was made by Amir Ali Shah. Manzoor Ahmad said while addressing the meeting that the election should be held at an early date. Accordingto him Mullas who were in power at this time were making false promises with the people. The petitioner while addressing the meeting demanded the release of Abdul Qayyum Butt, General Secretary Punjab, P. P. P. He appealed to the Government not to do injustice against the P. P. P.
7. 3, The main question to be considered in this case is as to whether the petitioner who is detenu in this case could be arrested and detained on the basis of the aforesaid two speeches and particularly his past conduct, in the circumstances prevailing at that time in the country. The petitioner, as mentioned above, delivered provocative speeches inciting the class hatred and said that the poor people were at war with rich and the capitalists. He said that P. P. P. Was organizing the poor people wanted to eliminate the rich and the capitalists and further wanted to enable the poor people to get rid of the rich people. The remaining part of his speech as reported above also aims at inciting cheap sentiments of the people, not only against the Government but against other political parties. The people at large particularly the poor people who are not well educated can be misled by such slogans and provo, cative speeches and indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to public peace and maintenance of law and order and the person who incites the people to that extent is also guilty of indulging in such ties prejudicial to public peace.
4. The order in question detaining the petitioner was passed on 2nd February, 1979 on the ground that since the petitioner has been indulging in such prejudicial activities, therefore, it was likely that be might cause trouble so far as maintenance of law and order was concerned in view of the likelihood of the announcement of the judgment in Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan's muder case by the Supreme Court, in the near future. It is not denied that the detenu is not only an active P. P. P.
8. Worker but also its office-bearer. At the time when the impugned order was passed P. P. P. Workers were allegedly indulging in prejudicial activities, such as bomb-blast, etc. 1 am not in a position to make any observation with regard to the truth or otherwise of the aforesaid allegations contained in the reports made by the public officials concerned. However, as held in Rehman v. The Province of East Pakistan and others (1) such reports are worth consideration, alongwith the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, while deciding the detention matter. It has been held in Rajah Muttu Ramlinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Piliai (2) that when such reports express opinions on the private rights of the parties, they cannot be regarded as having judicial authority or force, but being the reports of public officers, made in the course of
(1) PLD 1969 Dacca 339 (2) 1 I A 209 ' duty and under stat table authority, they require consideration so far as they supply information of official proceedings.
9. ' In spite of that, it is the duty of the Court to see whether such reports contain sufficient material for detention purposes : and they had been made in a genuine manner, Such reports, which contained specific, clear and extensive information regarding the activities of the detenu were relied upon by the Dacca. High Court in Rehman's case, referred to above. It was found that mere perusal of the reports showed that the utterances attributed to the detenu amounted to activity prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility. The Court in such cases is only to see whether the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority after perusal of such reports is reasonable and the discretion of the detaining authority, if exercised in a reasonable manner, cannot be substituted by that of the Court. If the conclusion is reasonable and based upon sufficient material, then no interference will be called for by the Court.
10. ' According to law, as held in Malik Ghulam Jillani v. Government of West Pakistan (I) satisfaction of the detaining authority must be a state of mind which has been induced by the existence of reasonable grounds for such satisfaction. It is the duty of the detaining authority in such circumstances to satisfy the Court that it had reasonable grounds for the suspicion expressed in the detaining order. In that case reports were received by the detaining authority as well as the Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan about the prejudicial activities of the detenus that they had planned to launch direct action and civil disobedience. In the statement made by the Home Secretary as well as the detaining authority it was said that the detention order was passed because of apprehension based on information that the detenus planned die. Turbance or public peace by various methods. It was held ultimately by the Supreme Court that there seemed no escape from the conclusion that the action taken by the authorities in detaining the detenus, by whom such threat to the public peace had clearly been issued, was justifiable for the purpose of preventing disturbances which were likely gravely to prejudice maintenance of the public order.
11. In the present case as mentioned above it is not denied that at the time when the detention order was passed some persons had started indulging in subversive activities. Such as bomb-blast, and damaging public and private property etc., on account of the impending announcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court first in the appeal of Mr. Bhutto against the death sentence awarded to him and secondly in the review petition. The detenu had been reported to the detaining authority having made provocative speeches in the aforesaid meetings of the P. P. P.
12. Workers inciting class hatred and disaffection towards the Government. He being an ardent P. P. P.
13. Worker/office-bearer it was genuinely apprehended by the detaining authority that if not detained at the relevant time then in view of the circumstances prevailing at that time he might act in a manner prejudicial to public peace and maintenance of the law and order. I am of the view that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner the impugned order based upon genuine apprehension yip ri?Htly passed against the petitioner. As such there was sufficient
(I) PLD 1969 SC 673 ' material before the detaining authority and the conclusion arrived at in this behalf cannot be deemed to be unreasonable and unjustified.
14. ' As a result of the above discussion there is no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.