' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his detention vide order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the Secretary, Home Department, Government of the Punjab, detaining the petitioner for a further period of ninety days under section 11-EEE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner has been arrested in a case F.I.R. No,180 dated 13-9-1998 under sections 302/465/471/109/34, P.P.C. Read with sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad. The petitioner had already been detained for a period of ninety days in District Jail, Rawalpindi, and was released on 19-7-2005. He was again detained vide the impugned order dated 21-7-2005 on the allegation that after this release, the petitioner in the assembly of people made a speech prejudicial to public safety.
3. Parawise comments furnished by the respondent have been perused wherein it is stated that the petitioner is an activist of defunct Tehrik-e-Jaffaria Pakistan (TJP) and is involved in activities which are prejudicial to public safety, maintenance of public order, threat to sectarian peace and harmony and tranquility in the area. The petitioner was notified in the list of activists of prescribed organizations maintained in the 4th Schedule under section 11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, he was rightly detained in accordance with law and on the basis of cogent reasons and believable evidence.
4. Learned Law Officer has also raised an objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed an alternate remedy of filing a representation before the Government of Punjab.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and have perused the contents of the writ petition besides parawise comments submitted by the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was again detained on the allegation of his involvement in the activities, which are pre-judicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order. There is no denial to the fact that the authority has detained the petitioner on the same allegations after two days of his release from his previous detention. The police has not produced any material or evidence to show that the petitioner was convicted in any such offence. Neither any record of his alleged activities has been produced. Mere report of the District Police Officer or the Police is not sufficient to detain him for a period of further ninety days. Furthermore the report of Police Station Cant. Shows that there existed certain doubts against the petitioner that he by giving his statement in the Press and making speech would be able to cause disturbance in the area and create sectarian problems but in support of his allegation, there is no material or record whatsoever with the police and on mere supposition, the petitioner has been involved in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that the petitioner was released from Jail from his previous detention on 19-7-2005 but he was not allowed to go to his house, rather he was kept in the Police Station illegally and thereafter on 21-7-2005, the present impugned order of his detention was passed without any lawful basis.
6. Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, has provided the safeguards as to arrest and detention of a citizen of the country. Sub-clause (4) of the Article contemplates that no law providing for preventive detention shall be made except to deal with persons acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security, or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, or external affairs of Pakistan, or public order, or the maintenance of supplies or services, and no such law shall authorize the detention of a person for a period exceeding (three months) unless the appropriate Review Board has, after affording him an opportunity of being heard in person, reviewed his case.
Learned Law Officer has not been able to establish that after the expiration of previous period of his detention, why he was not produced before the Review Board.
7. In the circumstances, I am unable to understand that without any activities by the petitioner, how the Police has gathered an impression that he will cause law and order situation and sectarian problems. If the detention is not continuation of the previous detention, a person can't be punished on the same allegation under which he had already passed the detention of ninety days. Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, further contemplates that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law.
8. As observed earlier in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner has faced the agony of detention of ninety days and no fresh material or evidence is available with the Police for his further detention of ninety days. In absence of sufficient material or evidence, petitioner's further detention can't be justified. The police officer present in Court when confronted with this situation, has admitted that no new criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, which is a sufficient proof that the petitioner has been detained or punished on the basis of the earlier collected material, which is not relevant for the purpose of passing the impugned detention order of the petitioner.
9. The contention of the learned Law Officer that the writ petition is not maintainable as an alternate remedy by filing a representation to the petitioner is available, which he has filed before the concerned authority. The said representation has not been decided as yet for reasons best known to the concerned authority. The Secretary, Home Department, has expressed his view in the parawise comments to justify the impugned order, therefore, the decision of the representation by him would be a futile exercise. The impugned detention order appears to have been passed illegally and without lawful authority, therefore, the petitioner can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This objection being misconceived is overruled. In this .Context, reliance is placed on the case of Abu Bakar Muhammad Reza v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department and 3 others PLD 2005 Lahore 370.
10. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 21-7-2005 is set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith from Jail if not required to be detained, in any other criminal case.