Zia-ud-Din Khattak, J.--This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 17.4.2008 whereby the District Coordination Officer (DCO) Kohat directed to arrest Qayyum son of Karim of Jungle Khel Kohat and detain him in custody in District Jail Kohat/Central Jail D.I.Khan for a period of thirty (30) days.
2. The impugned order reads thus:-- "Whereas, the information placed before me by the District Police Officer, Kohat and whereas, I have also satisfied myself from the other reliable sources that Qayyum son of Karim Mohallah Purdil Khan Jangle Khel Kohat has indulged himself in anti-social activities and a habitual criminal.
And whereas, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the said Qayyum to prevent him from acts prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order in Kohat District.
Now, therefore, I, Kamran Zeb Khan, District Coordination Officer, Kohat by virtue of powers vested in me under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, do hereby order to arrest the Qayyum and detain him in custody in District Jail, Kohat/Central Jail D.I.Khan for a period of thirty (30) days unless withdrawn earlier. The period of 30 days shall be counted with effect from his date of arrest".
3. Barrister Syed Masood Kausar, representing the petitioner referred to Section 3 (1) of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and on the strength of authority of the Apex Court reported in 1994 SCM R 1532 contended that there was nothing on record for the satisfaction of the respondent/DCO Kohat that the detenue had acted in any manner prejudicial to public safety or to the Maintenance of Public Order, that the reasons mentioned in the order are vague and do not furnish any material and, therefore, these could not form basis for a valid order under the Ordinance. Conversely, Mr. Ali Raza, learned DAG appearing for the respondent/State submitted copies of seven daily diaries and ten FIRs and urged that the detenue had a criminal history who was rightly detained under the Ordinance. He submitted that remedy of filing representation against the order of detention under Article 10 of the Constitution read with Section 3(6) of the MPO which was efficacious/alternate statutory remedy was not availed by the detenue, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, DAG for the State and perused the record.
5. A bare reading of the impugned order at para-2/ante would show that it discloses no material warranting invocation of the provisions of Section 3 MPO. Under Article 10, Clause (5) of the Constitution as well as Section 3(6) of the MPO, 1960 when a detention order is made, the authority making the order is required to communicate to the person the grounds on which the order has been made". It is noted with regret that the impugned order was passed 21 days back but so far the grounds of detention have not been communicated to the detenue in terms of Section 3(6) of the MPO, 1960 to enable him to make an effective statutory representation to the Government. This being so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this score alone.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 17.4.2008 of the DCO, Kohat is set aside and the detenue Qayyum is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in custody in any other case.