' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Abdul Rashid Bhatti son of Bashir Ahmad petitioner through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks direction that the impugned detention order No,RDM/06 dated 5-3-2010 passed by respondent No, 2 District Coordination Officer Lahore in exercise of powers conferred on it under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 through which it has been ordered that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of 30 days with immediate effect be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The grounds of the detention order are as under:
(i) That he is desperate and dangerous person and his being at large would render security hazards to the community, danger to human life, health and safety;
(ii) That he will resort to harassm ent and commission of illegal acts and heinous offences thus posing a grave threat to public safety;
(iii) That his activities are likely to create unrest amongst public at large which may result in disturbance of public tranquility thus posing grave threat to maintenance of public order;
(iv) That his above said activities are prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a political figure and was elected twice as member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly for the year 1993-97 and 2002 to 2007 on PML(Q) ticket. Due to political rivalry, the petitioner and his family members were involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 435/2006 at Police Station Faisal Town. However, they were found innocent by the- Investigating Officer during the investigation. Later on the petitioner and his brother were again involved in case F.I.R. No, 148/08 registered at Police Station Town Ship, Lahore. The petitioner and his brother were granted pre-arrest bail in the said criminal case. Despite bail the petitioner and his brother were detained by the local police and were sent to the judicial lock-up on 6-8-2008 in earlier case F.I.R.
No, 435/06. Thereafter, they were released on bail. A similar detention order against the brother of the petitioner was passed which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 25-8-2008 in W.P. No, 10353 of 2008. Earlier a detention order dated 5-9-2008 was passed against the petitioner during the period of incarceration of the petitioner. Again the impugned detention order has been passed against the petitioner which is almost identical to the previous one, hence this writ petition.
4. On 22-3-2010 the respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments before next date of hearing. The needful has been done. According to the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the respondent No,2 seven F.I.Rs, have been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in a number of heinous criminal cases. That the impugned detention order has been passed on the request and material provided by the CCPO, the SSP Lahore and Security Branch. According to the report submitted by the SSP Lahore, the case was forwarded for issuance of detention order on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a case of murder, murderous attack, abduction and rioting/firing with illicit arms registered at various police stations of Lahore District, formed a gang of Qabza group and deprived many poor people of their properties by illegal possession at gunpoint. He is the mastermind in planning the murder of innocent people for the purpose of Jagha tax and illegal possession of properties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned detention order is not sustainable because no material in relation to the grounds of the detention order was communicated to the petitioner; that there was no material with the respondent authority to pass the impugned detention order; that the criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and his family members by the "Provincial high ups" who are the political rivals of the petitioner; that the involvement of the petitioner in a number of criminal cases could not form basis for preventive detention of the petitioner: The learned counsel adds that the respondent DCO has mechanically accepted the reports of the police and other agencies without applying his own independent mind to the material placed before him; further that if one of the grounds was found bad or non-existent, the detention order would be rendered invalid. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the impugned detention order passed by the respondent-DCO is without lawful authority and of no legal effect that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent No,I which has not been decided so far.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate-General has opposed this petition on the grounds that there was sufficient material available with the detaining authority for its satisfaction to pass the impugned detention order against the petitioner; that the petitioner has been involved in a number of cases of murder, murderous attack, abduction and rioting/firing with illicit arms registered at various police stations of Lahore District; that the petitioner has formed a gang of Qabza group and deprived many poor people from their properties by illegal possession at gunpoint. Further that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. That the petitioner has availed the alternate remedy of filing a representation before the competent authority, therefore, this petition is premature.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record minutely. Apparently no material in relation to the ground of detention order has been provided to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of any material it would have been difficult for the petitioner to defend himself by filing a representation. Despite this the petitioner has filed a representation before respondent No,I bearing Diary No, 77 dated 17-3-2010 on which no action seems to have been taken by the said respondent.
8. This case relates to curtailing the liberty of an individual, therefore, prior to embarking upon the examination of the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and discussing the merits of the case let me examine the guarantee(s) of liberty of a citizen provided and restriction(s), if any, imposed, thereupon under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. Articles, 4, 9 and 15 inter alia, deal with the liberty of a person while Article 10 provides in detail the rights of a person, who has been arrested or detained in the circumstances in which preventive detention laws are to be made. It further elaborates, inter alia, the rights of a person so detained. It is appropriate to reproduce the said Articles (ibid) hereunder:-- ' Article-4 Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc.---(1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
(2) In particular:--
(a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;
(b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and
(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.
' Article-9 ' Security of Person.---No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law.
' Article-10 ' Safeguards as to arrest and detention.---(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before a Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the nearest Magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) 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 and reported, before the expiration of the said period, that there is in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention, and, if the detention is continued after the said period of [three months], unless the appropriate Review Board has reviewed his case and reported, before the expiration of each period of three months, that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention.
' Explanation I.-In this Article, "the appropriate Review Board" means---
(i) in the case of a person detained under a Federal law, a Board appointed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and consisting of a Chairman and two other persons, each of whom is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court; and
(ii) in the case of a Person detained under a Provincial law, a Board appointed by the Chief Justice of High Court concerned and consisting of a Chairman and two other persons, each of whom is or has been a Judge of a High Court.
' Explanation II.---The opinion of a Review Board shall be expressed in terms of the views of the majority of its members.
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, [within fifteen days] from such detention, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order: ' Provided that the authority making any such order may refuse to disclose facts which such authority considers it to be against the pubic interest to disclose.
(6) The authority making the order shall furnish to the appropriate Review Board all documents relevant to the case unless a certificate, signed by a Secretary to the Government concerned, to the effect that it is not in the public interest to furnish any documents, is produced.
(7) Within a period of twenty-four months commencing on the day of his first detention in pursuance of an order made under a law providing for preventive detention, no person shall be detained in pursuance of any such order for more than a total period of eight months in the case of person detained for acting in a manner prejudicial to public order and twelve months in any other case: ' Provided that this clause shall not apply to any person who is employed by, or works for, or acts on instructions received from, the enemy [or who is acting or attempting to act in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof or who commits or attempts to commit any act which amounts to an anti-national activity as defined in a Federal law or is a member of any association which has for its objects, or which indulges in, any such anti- national activity.]
(8) The appropriate Review Board shall determine the place of detention of the person detained and fix a reasonable subsistence allowance for his family.
(9) Nothing in this Article shall apply to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien.
' Article-15 ' Freedom of Assembly.---Every citizen shall have the right to remain in, and, subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid Articles of Constitution, inter alia, it transpires that:--
(i) to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever, he may be;
(ii) no action detrimental to liberty of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;
(iii) no person shall be deprived of liberty save in accordance with law;
(iv) no law providing for preventive detention shall be made except to deal with persons acting in a manner prejudicial to the (a) integrity (b) security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof (c) or external affairs of Pakistan (0 or public order, (g) or the maintenance of supplies or services;
(v) the authority making the order shall within fifteen days from such detention, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the orders.
11. Preamble of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960: "Whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law providing for preventive detention and control of person and publications for reasons connected with public safety, public interest and the maintenance of public order in the Province of West Pakistan."
' Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 ' Power to arrest and detain suspected person.---(1) Government, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, may, by an order in writing, direct the arrest and detention in such period as may be specified in the order, and Government, if satisfied that for the aforesaid reasons it is necessary so to do, may, subject to the other provisions of this section, extend from time to time the period of such detention (for a period not exceeding six months at a time)
(Explanation I).---For the purposes of this section---
(i) dealing in the black-market or hoarding as defined in the Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1948; or
(ii) an act of smuggling punishable under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or the land Customs Act, 1924, or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) an act which is an offence under the Drugs Act 1976 (XXXI of 1976).
' Shall be deemed to be an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(Explanation II)---Whoever is or was a member of an association or its Executive Committee, which association is or has been declared to be unlawful under any law for the time being in force in the Province, at any time during the period of seven days immediately before it was so declared to be unlawful shall be deemed to be acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order for the purposes of this section.
(2) If a District Coordination Officer or a public servant authorized in this behalf by the Government has reasons to believe that a person, within his territorial jurisdiction has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner which is prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order, he shall immediately refer the matter to the Government.
(3) (a) An order of arrest under subsection (1) may be addressed to a Police Officer or any other person and such officer or person shall have the power to arrest the person mentioned in the order and in doing so he may use such force as may be necessary. The Police Officer or the other person, as the case may be, shall commit the arrested person to such custody as may be prescribed under section (7).
(b) A Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, if satisfied on receipt of credible information that a person against whom an order of arrest or of arrest and detention has been made under this section is present within such officer's jurisdiction, may arrest him without a warrant in the same manner as he would have done if such order of arrest had been addressed to him, "and thereupon commit the arrested person to such custody as may be prescribed under subsection (7); or if he receives any requisition in this behalf from the police officer or other person to whom the warrant, of arrest for the person arrested is addressed, make over the custody of the arrested person to such police officer or other person."
12. A bare perusal of the above Articles shows that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 lays down a very broad concept of liberty of an individual which demands a very high level of respect and observance of such rights from the State and its functionaries. In addition to the rights of an individual to enter into a valid contract, join a profession of choice and to worship according to the dictates of his/her own religion, a firm commitment to his/her liberty has also been emphasized by guaranteeing the freedom from bodily restraint and from illegal prosecution. The purpose of such guarantees is to enable an ordinary citizen to live a more meaningful and fulfilling life in pursuit of goals which may result in the progress of the country and happiness, peace and tranquility of the citizen. Such rights have been religiously upheld by our Courts and for guidance extracts from a few decisions of the High Courts and the apex Court are reproduced as follows:--
(a) Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504) "it will not be out of context to mention that clause (1) of Article 4 provides that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right to every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan. Whereas clause (2) thereof lays down that in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. The above Article is to be read with Article 9 of the Constitution which postulates that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law. If a person is to be deprived of his life on account of execution of death sentence awarded by a Tribunal which does not fit in within the framework of the Constitution, it will be violative of above Fundamental Right contained in Article 9. However, the learned Attorney-General contended that in fact terrorists who kill innocent persons violate the above Article 9 by depriving them of their lives and not the Federal Government which caused the promulgation of the impugned Ordinance with the object to punish terrorist. No patriotic Pakistani can have any sympathy with terrorists who deserve severe punishment, but the only question at issue is, which forum is to award punishment, i,e, whether a forum as envisaged by the Constitution or by a Military Court which does not fit in within the framework of the Constitution. No doubt, that when a terrorist takes the life of an innocent person, he is violating Article 9 of the Constitution, but if the terrorist, as a retaliation, is deprived of his life by a mechanism other than through due process of law within the framework of the Constitution, it will also be violative of above Article 9."
(b) Abdullah Baloch v. Federation of Pakistan through Defence Ministry, Secretary, Islamabad and 5 others (PLD 2006 Karachi 584) "Whenever any person being a citizen of this country, or even if he is not a citizen but is for the time being within the country, is required by any agency, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Federal and Provincial Governments to deal with such a person in accordance with law, meaning thereby that if any such person is required in connection with any matter he can be arrested, interrogated upon, inquiry/investigation can be held and thereafter if found guilty can be prosecuted before the competent court of law, or if there are sufficient circumstances, a detention order can be also be passed in accordance with law, which is to be placed before the review boards from time to time in accordance with law. However, no agency of the government has any right to prosecute anybody and to deprive anybody of his life or liberty without due course of law. If custody of any person is required in connection with an inquiry/investigation, he must be produced before a court of competent jurisdiction. Request for police custody be made and person required be kept in the manner authorized under the law.
Whisking away of citizens in clandestine and surreptitious manner by any agency/authority is the negation of the rule of law. Whenever any person is missing, it is the responsibility of the Federal and Provincial Governments to search and locate such person even if he is not in their custody and produce him before the Court to show their bona fides and to demonstrate that they are alive to their responsibility under the Constitution and law."
(c) Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 S.C.14) "It is in this sense that an action which is mala fide or colourable is not regarded as an action in accordance with law. Similarly, action taken upon extraneous or irrelevant consideration is also not an action in accordance with law. Action taken on no ground at all, or without proper application of the mind of the detaining authority would also not qualify as action in accordance with law and would also not qualify as action in accordance with law and would, therefore, have to be struck down as being an action in an unlawful manner."
(d) Ismaeel v. The State (2010 SCMR 27). "This is particularly so where the fundamental rights of a citizen such as his liberty, are involved. The right of personal liberty of a citizens enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution and has been jealously guarded by the Courts in Pakistan. If the petitioner is to be deprived of his liberty, this should only happen in accordance with law."
(e) Muhammad Sharif v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 709). "Collective reading of Article 9 of the Constitution and Police Rules, 1934, R.25.2 demanded collection of some incriminating material against an accused person before effecting his arrest. Automatic arrest without bringing some incriminating material against accused on the record was deprecated."
13. From the above, it is clear that superior Courts have held that the liberty of every citizen of this country is to be protected and guaranteed under Articles, 4,9,10 and 15 of the Constitution. In fact, it is the duty of the State to jealously safeguard the liberty of every citizen "Wherever he may be". The Constitution provides safeguards against the violation of the fundamental rights of every citizen to life and liberty from illegal and mala fide acts of omission or commission of any governmental authority or person. Therefore, any action without sufficient cause depriving or restricting the liberty of a citizen is not envisaged by the Constitution of this country and any such action taken by the Government or any of its functionary will not be immune from scrutiny of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 199 of the Constitution.
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, let me now examine the preamble and section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960, which have been reproduced supra for ease of convenience. The preamble indicates that the law for preventive detention and control of person is being amended and consolidated for reasons connected with public safety, public interest and the maintenance of public order.
15. Keeping in view the repeated guarantees of liberty provided in the Constitution of the country the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 does not give a "carte blanche" to the provincial government to use it against curtailing the liberty of ordinary citizens, anti-social elements, political rivals, petty thieves and ordinary criminals etc. Without proceeding to apply due process of law or to act in accordance with law. The use of the said provision is restrictive in nature and its application is subject to the requirements laid down in Article 10 of the Constitution. It will become operative when the government is "Satisfied"
(a) to prevent any person from acting in a manner prejudicial;
(b) to public safety; or
(c) the maintenance of public order.
"It is necessary to direct the arrest and detention."
16., The term "public safety" has not been defined in the legislation (ibid), however, Explanation-II of section 3, clearly defines that for the purposes of this section whoever is or was a member of an association or its Executive Committee, which association is or has been declared to be unlawful under any law for the time being in force in the Province, at any time during the period of seven days immediately before it was so declared to be unlawful, shall be deemed to be acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order for the purposes of this section. It is pertinent to note that the Government of Punjab having felt the need of expanding the scope of the meaning of the term "maintenance of public order" added item (iii) in the ambit of Explanation-I through an amendment in 1999 vide Punjab Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment Act) 1998 (I of 1999). It is further to be noted that an "Explanation" to a- statutory provision is a clever device used by the legislation to facilitate the proper interpretation of the provision, so as to remove any possible confusion and misunderstanding. It is a well-settled principle of Interpretation that an Explanation does not enlarge the scope of the original provision of statute that it is supposed to explain.
17. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion there can be no doubt that the scope of "public order" or "public safety" is restricted to the conditions stated in Explanation I and II of the law (ibid) and cannot be expanded to any other situation/scenario.
18. As has been held after thorough discussions by the apex Court and the various High Courts of the country that the provisions of section 3 (ibid) cannot be invoked in the following cases:--
(a) (Muhammad Khalid v. District Magistrate Jhelum (NLR 1980 U.C. 434).
Grounds general in nature and merely containing allegations about criminal, anti-social activities, notorious character and past criminal history of detenue---Executive also choosing to proceed against detenu on punitive side by prosecuting him for his alleged criminal activities---Contended that it is not permissible to detain a person on basis of very allegations which are sub judice before criminal courts.
(b) Bashiran Bibi v. The District Magistrate, Kasur (1990 P.Cr.L.J. 913)
Detention order was based bn the ground that detenu was involved in a number of criminal cases and also on the basis of a secret inquiry---Conducting of secret inquiry was challenged by the detenu and the Advocate-General was not in a position to substantiate same---District Magistrate appeared to have acted mechanically---Criminal charges for which the detenu was facing trial or in which he was convicted or acquitted, could nQt form the basis for preventive detention and even one bad ground or non-existent ground would render the detention order as invalid---Detention order being without lawful authority was thus ineffective---Detenu was ordered to be set at liberty in circumstances.
(c) Muhammad Mushtaq v. District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and another (1997 MLD 1658).
Involvement of the detenu in a number of criminal cases, per se, was not a valid ground for his preventive detention as he could be vexed twice on the basis of the same criminal charge due to the pendency or disposal of the said criminal cases and his detention was nothing but punishment depriving him of his liberty---Report submitted by the police against the detenu being of general type was not sacrosanct and no material was available with the District Magistrate to justify the passing of the impugned order for his detention which was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(d) There should be material before the detaining authority for its satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order. In the case reported as Mrs. Majeeda Fatima v. District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, District Central Karachi and 3 others (PLD 1990 Karachi 470) while interpreting the word "satisfaction" appearing in the Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) ibid it was held that "satisfaction" is to be objective in nature and not subjective of such nature as to allow the Authorities to act on whims and caprices without there being material before them in support of grounds of detention."
19. It is a settled preposition of law that in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the High Court can examine the validity of the detention order. In the case reported as Mir Abdul Bari Baluch v. The Government of Pakistan through the Cabinet Secretary, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1968 S.C. 313) it was held that, "High Court can insist on disclosure of materials on which executive authority had acted subject to right of State to claim privilege in respect of an appeal against decision of executive authority." It was further held that, "mere production of order of detaining authority in proof of "satisfaction" is not sufficient." The respondent-DCO has failed to provide any material in relation to the grounds of the detention order to the petitioner and he has not applied his mind in order to satisfy himself while passing the impugned detention order against the petitioner.
20. So far as the material/reports forming the basis of passing the impugned detention order are concerned, the same show that certain criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in criminal cases. It is pertinent to mention here that out of the seven criminal cases the petitioner has been granted bail in two cases registered vide F.I.Rs No,435/2006 and 148/2008 at Police Station Faisal Town and Town Ship respectively, therefore, the petitioners alleged criminal activity, was already a subject-matter of various criminal cases and on the same allegations his detention was not justified in law, as this amounts to vexing the petitioner twice.
Article 12 (1)(b) of the Constitution states as follows:-Protection against retrospective punishment.- - -
(1) No law shall authorize the punishment of a person---
(a) -
(b) for an offence by a penalty greater than, or of a kind different from, the penalty prescribed by law for that offence at the time of offence was committed.
Therefore, the use of section 3(1) against a person against whom some criminal proceedings are pending already, is also violative of Article 12(1)(b) of the Constitution.
21. The respondent No,2 has accepted mechanically the recommendations of the police without applying his own independent mind to the recommendations and material placed before him. The mechanical nature of the impugned order of the respondent-DCO is apparent from the fact that the same has been initiated on the basis of a report of Incharge Security Branch to the SSP Operations Lahore, who vide letter No,1189/DSP-L.Ops dated 15-2-2010 forwarded a letter to the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore which was copied verbatim and forwarded by him to the DCO Lahore through letter No,4892/9B dated 16-2-2010 who has copied it faithfully and issued the impugned detention order of the petitioner. The respondent/DCO was required to apply his mind, consider the material placed before him, and record the reasons for issuance or decline of the issuance of the order. Nothing has been brought on record of this writ petition to show that the DCO acted in such a manner prior to the issuance of the impugned detention order. Even if only one of the grounds was found to be bad or non-existent, the detention order would be rendered invalid.
Reliance is placed on the case of Umer Din alias Umroo v. S.H.O. Bhai Pheru (1990 PCr.LJ 948).
22. For what has been discussed above, the respondent has failed to justify as to how the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan, or public order or the maintenance of supplies or services. The liberty of the citizens cannot be curtailed merely on presumptions. , As such the impugned order of detention passed by the respondent No,2 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to all the District Coordination Officers of the Province of Punjab for their guidance and compliance. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore for issuing appropriate directions to the concerned functionaries in the light of observations made hereinabove.