' WAQAR HUSSAN MIR, J.---The noted Writ Petition No,9230 of 2010 and Writ Petition No,9864 of 2010 are being decided together as both involve the common questions of law and facts.
2. The noted Writ Petition has been filed against the detention order dated 19-4-2010 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Nankana Sahib/respondent No,2 against Saleem, brother of the petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the "the detenu") whereby in exercise of the powers conferred upon the DCO under section 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 read with section 26 of the Ordinance, the detenu was ordered to be arrested and detained in District Jail, Sheikhupura for a period of 30 days.
2-A. The facts of the case (W.P.No,9230/2010) as stated in the writ petition are that in the year 2005 on the repeated pressing demands of outstanding amount of the detenu from the police officer posted at Police Station Lundianwala District Faisalabad, the detenu was abused and threatened of dire consequences, resultantly five imaginary and false cases of theft and under the Arms Ordinance were registered against the detenu within a period of one month in Police station Lundianwala District Faisalabad; that reading of the F.I.Rs, would lead a prudent man to an irresistible conclusion that the same are the creation of a fertile evil imagination, devoid of truth and reasoning; anyway, the detenu was released on bail in all the cases and the challans in all the cases thereafter never seen light of the day; that the detenu is educated grownup man having three children coming of highly respectable peace loving family and except May, 2005, the unfortunate month, neither there was any case against him in his 37 years of life nor he was ever convicted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law' being contrary to the constitutional provisions casts very heavy .Duty on the issuing and arresting authority of being satisfied from such material before it to the effect that the person is acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order; that simple registration of false, fictitious, imaginary cases within a month time at one Police Station of District Faisalabad cannot be a good ground for the issuance of detention order; that the intention of the legislature is that the authority issuing the detention order should apply its mind to the facts and material placed before it forming basis for the issuance of the order and there being nothing tangible in the impugned order, it is clear that mechanical order has been passed in an illegal manner demonstrating misuse of power; that the detenu has an inalienable right under the Constitution of freedom of liberty and movement, which cannot be taken away except in due course of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No,9864 of 2010 submits that the District Coordination Officer, Sargodha unauthorizedly issued the detention orders dated 8-5-2010 for preventive detention of Muhammad Nawaz, first cousin of the petitioner, Muhammad Akram, nephew of the petitioner and Mazhar Iqbal, son of the petitioner for 30 days with same substance but different numbers on the grounds that they are criminals and protectors of criminals, hence their activities are prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order; that the District Coordination Officer has no authority to issue' such order under section 3(1) of the MPO, Ordinance, 1960 without delegation of powers under the Ordinance; that respondent No,2 (District Coordination Officer) who has issued detention orders of the detenus on false report of respondent No,3 (District Police Officer) has failed to mention the provision of MPO, Ordinance, 1960 which empowers him to issue such orders; that respondent No,2 has assumed jurisdiction of respondent No,1 (Government of Punjab) unlawfully, arbitrarily and without just cause; that the grounds or reasons on the basis of which order for preventive detention may be issued under the MPO Ordinance, 1960 are altogether different from the grounds/reasons given in the impugned order and the purpose of impugned orders is only to disgrace the detenus and to inflict injury upon them; that the report made by respondent No,3 (DPO) is false and exaggerated one and the detenus are neither protector nor harbourer of criminals, in cases registered against them,
5. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the writ is not maintainable as an alternate remedy is provided under sub-clause (6)(a) of section 3 of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 of filing a representation to the Government; that after promulgation of Police Order, 2002, a duty has been cast upon every District Coordination Officer to issue 'detention orders; that in view of the powers conferred by section 26 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 the Governor of Punjab has delegated powers to District Coordination Officers and the District Coordination Officer may exercise the power of the Government under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Ordinance within the territorial limits of the district. Further submits that the detention orders purportedly are issued on the reports prepared by respective District Police Officers by following the procedure and the report is sought for from the concerned S.H.O.
Who in turn submits his report to the D.P.O. And the D.P.O. Concerned for the issuance of detention order sends his recommendation to the DCO, therefore, the impugned orders are not ultra vires, which also contain the grounds upon which the necessity has arisen for issuance of the same. The learned A.A.-G. Further submits that the names are placed in Register No,3 by the concerned S.H.O.
Which is called "Red Book" as a secret one maintained under Rule 22.59, Part-IV, of the Police Rules, 1934, that sub-clause (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance ibid, brought an amendment which deals not only with the present and future but also the past acts of a detenu, that the exercise undertaken for the "satisfaction" is that the DPO writes to the concerned DCO for the issuance of detention order and whatever report may be, mechanical detention order is issued irrespective of the fact whether this exercise comes within the word "satisfaction" or not and whether the DCO can pass any detention order in perfunctory manner.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. "Preamble" of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is as under:- "An Ordinance to armed and consolidate the law relating to preventive detention and control of persons and publications connected with the maintenance of public order in West Pakistan.
' Whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law providing for preventive detention and control of persons and publications for reasons connected with public safety, public interest and the maintenance of public order in the Province of West Pakistan."
' The relevant portions of sections 3 and 26 of the Ordinance are also reproduced below, for facility of reference:- "3. Power to arrest and detain suspected persons.--(1) Government, if satisfied that within 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.-- For the purposes of this section;
(i) dealing in the 'black-market' or 'hoarding' as defined in the Hoarding and Black-Market Act, 1948; or
(ii) an act of smuggling punishable under 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 (XXI 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 Magistrate or any other servant of Government authority in this behalf by a general or special order of Government, has reason to believe that any person within his territorial jurisdiction has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order, he shall forthwith refer the matter to Government for order."
' Subs.(2) as substituted by Punjab Ordinance X of 2008 (Supplement (2004-2009), Part I, (Punjab Statutes) 220:
(2) If a District Coordination Officer or a public servant authorized in this behalf by the Goverment 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--- ' Section 26 as substituted by Punjab Ordinance X of 2008. ((Supplement (2004-2009), Part I, (Punjab Statutes) 220::
26. Delegation of Power to District Coordination Officers. --The Government may, by order in writing, direct that a District Coordination Officer, may subject to such restrictions as the Government may specify, exercise the power of the Government under subsection (1) of section 3 within the territorial limits of the district".
8. The case laws relevant for the proposition in hand with their significant head-notes are reproduced below: ' Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and another (PLD 1973 Karachi 78): "An order of preventive detention has to satisfy the requirements laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that is to say, (1) the Court must be satisfied that the material before the detaining authority was such that a reasonable person would be satisfied as to the necessity for making the order of preventive detention; (ii) that satisfaction should be established with regard to each of the grounds of detention, and, if one of the grounds is shown to be bad, non-existent or irrelevant, the whole order of detention would be rendered invalid; (iii) that initial burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of the preventive detention, and (iv) that the detaining authority must place the whole material, upon which the order of detention is based, before the Court notwithstanding its claim of privilege with respect to any document, the validity of which claim shall be within the competence of the Court to decide.
' In addition to these requirements, the Court has further to be satisfied, in cases of preventive detention; that the order of detention was made by the authority prescribed in the law relating to preventive detention; that each of the requirements of the law relating to preventive detention should be strictly complied with, that "satisfaction" in fact existed with regard to the necessity of preventive detention of the detenu; that the grounds of detention had been furnished within the period prescribed by law, and if no much period is prescribed, then "as soon as may be"; that the grounds of detention should not be vague and indefinite and should be comprehensive enough to enable the detenu to make representation against his detention to the authority prescribed by law; that the grounds of detention are within the scope of the law relating to preventive detention, that is, they are not irrelevant to the aim and object of this law and that the detention should not be for extraneous considerations or for purposes which may be attached on the ground of malice."
' Faqir Imdad Ali v. District Magistrate and 2 others (PLD 1997 Karachi 530): "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)- ----S.3---Detention---Mala fide intention---Mala fide and malice, held, could be established on grounds that there was so much anxiety and persistence on part of Authorities concerned to detain detenu that same material was relied upon by them as was repeatedly relied in previous proceedings against him."
' Gulzar Ahmad v. District Magistrate and another (1988 P Cr.LJ 1790)--- "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) ----S.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Detention--- Memorandum of grounds delivered to detenu containing grounds for his detention which were vague, relating to involvement of detenu in cases pending in Court, which could not form basis of detention or were palpably wrong. ----S.3---Detention---When one of the grounds was vague, it would prove fatal to entire detention order---Mere fact that some other ground was lawful could not validate an invalid detention order."
' Muhammad Khalid v. District Magistrate, Jhelum and another (NLR 1980 UC 434): "Preventive Detention--- - ---Detention under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (1960)---Grounds general in nature and merely containing allegations about criminal anti-social activities, notorious character and past criminal history of detenu---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 subjudice before criminal Courts--- Contention found to be of considerable force---Impugned detention order declared as unlawful on view that grounds conveyed were vague and did not meet requirement of law."
' Mst. Shazia Perveen v. District Magistrate, Okara (PLD 1988 Lahore 611): "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)--- - ---Ss. 3(1)(2)(7) & 26---Delegation of powers by District Magistrate---Provisions of section 3 (1) do not make a reference by a District Magistrate, a statutory condition precedent to the making of an order under section 3 (1)---Interpretation that District Magistrate has to follow requirement of section 3(2), in respect of the delegation of powers under section 3(1) would have the effect of rendering provisions of section 26 redundant, - ---Section 26---Criminal Procedure Code(V of 1898), S.10(3)---Delegation of powers can be to the District Magistrate and not to a person who has been vested with the powers of a District Magistrate under Criminal Procedure Code."
' Umer Din alias Umroo v. S.H.O., Bhai Pheru and 3 others (1990 PCr.LJ 948): "........Criminal charges for which the detenu was facing trial or was convicted/acquitted could not form basis for preventive detention and even if one of the grounds was found bad or non- existent, the detention order would be rendered invalid Jalal alias Jala v. District Magistrate, Kasur and '2 others (1990 P Cr.LJ 1529): ' Cases relating to past years could not be construed as a sufficient ground for taking a preventive action and cases relating to current year had been challenged before Courts of competent jurisdiction.--- ---Law encroaching on the liberty of citizens must be construed strictly."
' Bashiran Bibi v. The District Magistrate, Kasure (1990 P Cr. LJ 913): "....Detention order was based on the ground that detenu was involved in a number of criminal cases and also on the basis of a secret enquiry---Criminal charges for which the detenu was facing trial or in which he was convicted or acquitted, could not form the basis of preventive detention and even one bad ground or non-existent ground would render the detention order as invalid---.
' Ahmad Ali v. The State (1995 MLD 1748): "---When a person has been prosecuted on a criminal charge, the same material should not in fairness be taken as reasonable basis for ordering his detention."
' Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 6 others v. The District Magistrate Batagram and another (1995 P Cr.
LJ 587): "---No reason or occasion was available for the passing of the detention order in respect of the past transactions regarding which separate cases had already been duly registered against the accused---Detention order was held to be void in circumstances and was quashed."
' Masal Khan v. District Magistrate, Peshawar and 3 others (PLD 1997 Peshawar 148): "---Constitutional petition against the detention order was maintainable, firstly because the freedom and liberty of the detenu was involved which was his constitutional right and secondly High Court had got the supervisory jurisdiction over judicial, quasi-judicial and executive functionaries of the Provincial and Federal Government and Article 199 of the Constitution--- Remedy provided to the detenu by way of representation to Provincial Government was not an adequate remedy---Impugned detention order had been based on the registration of petty criminal cases and no case showing the indulgence of the detenu in activities prejudicial to public peace and law and order situation or establishing him to be a desperate or dangerous criminal, could be cited against him by the prosecution---. "
' Muhammad Azim v. District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and another (PLJ 1997 Lahore 1652): "---Availability of alternative remedy of making representation to Government against detention order does not fetter this Court."
"---Involvement of detenu in seven criminal cases of theft ended in acquittal at trial, it cannot be said that detenu is having any blot on his character---."
' Nasrullah v. The District Magistrate R.Y.Khan and others (1997 UC 508): "Section 3. Mere production of order of detaining order in proof of "satisfaction" is not sufficient when allegations have been formulated by District Magistrate in a perfunctory manner. Detention order under section 3 in such case would be void ab initio and liable to be struck down by High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction."
' Muhammad Ishaq v. District Magistrate, Sheikhupura (PLD 1978 Lahore 223): "District Magistrate. Passing order on satisfaction of Superintendent of Police and not on his own satisfaction---Satisfaction envisaged by section 26 being that of authority passing order of detention and not that of any other authority, order of detention, held, not passed according to law and set aside as being without lawful authority."
' Shahbaz Afghan v. The District Magistrate and 2 others (1990 PCr.LJ 274): "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)--- ----Section 3-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Detention order was passed by District Magistate against petitioner on three grounds---No proof whatsoever was produced to prove first ground that petitioner was desperate, hardened and notorious criminal and narcotic peddler--- Neither any report by police nor any complaint was made that petitioner was involved in such like activities---Second ground related to involvement of petitioner in 22 criminal cases, out of which he had been acquitted in one case while remaining cases were still pending in different Courts, although simple pendency of criminal cases could not form any basis for detention order---Third ground being that despite repeated warnings petitioner did not refrain from activities creating discord and feelings of hatred between public---."
' Muhammad Mushtaq v. District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and another (1997 MLD 1658): "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)--- ----Section 3(1)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199---Constitutional petition--- Preventive detention---Involvement of the detenu in a number of criminal cases, per se, was not a valid ground for his preventive detention as he could not 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---."
' Inayat Ullah v. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and another (1998 P Cr. LT 3): "West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)--- ----Detention order against detenus was issued on the grounds that they had been charged with printing of fake/bogus certificates for Deeni Board and a case under sections 406/419/420/468/471 to 475, P.P.C. Had been registered against them and due to involvement of detenus in criminal case religious circle of district had shown resentment...."
9. Subjective study of the subject-matter in hand is required to be undertaken by this Court for laying down the parameters for issuance of detention orders avoiding complication in future and for that matter, one has to resort to scheme of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 to seek proper legal guidance. Firstly, this Court is to look into the "preamble" of the Ordinance. As many as four conditions have been incorporated, which are to be read conjointly as the word "and" is used and not "or" and these conditions are (i) Preventive detention and (ii) control of persons and (iii) publications for reasons connected with public safety, public interest and (iv) the maintenance of public order in the Province of West Pakistan. Section 2 (as amended up to date) of the Ordinance, 1960 contains the definitions and clause (c) thereof reads as under:- "(c) "District Coordination Officer" means the District Coordination Officer of a district appointed under section 28 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (XIII of 2001)."
' In section 28 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, District Coordination Officer is defined as under:- "District Coordination Officer.---In every district, the Government shall appoint a District Coordination Officer who shall, be a civil servant of the Federation or of the Province, as far as possible in Basic Pay Scale 20": ' Provided that in a City District, the District Coordination Officer may be a civil servant of the Federation of Province in Basic Scale 21.
(2) The District Coordination Officer shall be coordinating head of the District Administration and shall-
(a) ensure that the business of the District Coordination Group of Offices is carried out in accordance with the laws for the time being in force;
(b) co-ordinate the activities of the groups of offices for coherent planning, synergistic development, effective and efficient functioning of the District Administration;
(c) exercise general supervision over programmes, projects, services, and activities of the District Administration;
(d) coordinate flow of information required by the Zila Council for performance of its functions under this Ordinance;
(e) act as Principal Accounting Officer of the District Government and be responsible to the Public Accounts Committee of the Provincial Assembly;
(f) act and perform functions of collector under sections 54, 68, 70 (2), 71, 72, 92, 93, Rule 18 of Order XXI Order XL and for similar other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908);
(g) assist the Zila Nazim in accomplishment of administrative and financial discipline and efficiency in the discharge of the functions assigned to District Administration;
(h) prepare a report on the implementation of development plans of the District Government for presentation to the Zila Council in its annual budget session; and
(i) initiate the performance evaluation reports of the Executive District Officers and shall be countersigning officer of such reports of the District Officers initiated by the Executive District Officers.
' Whereas, functions and powers of the Executive District Officer are detailed in section 29 of the Ordinance, which is as under:-- "Functions and Powers of Executive District Officer. The functions and powers of the Executive District Officer shall be to-
(a) ensure that the business of the group of offices under his administrative control is carried out in accordance with law and die rules and the human and material resources placed at his disposal are optimally utilized to improve governance;
(b) coordinate and supervise the activities of the offices and ensure efficient service delivery by the functionaries under his administrative control;
(c) supply information to the Monitoring Committees of the Zila Council and Union Councils;
(d) take appropriate corrective actions based on the information received from Monitoring Committees;
(e) enforce relevant Federal, Provincial laws and rules, including tax laws;
(f) prepare development plans and propose budgetary allocations for their execution;
(g) implement approved plans and policies;
(h) authorize disbursement of performance bounces to the employees;
(i) prepare proposals for expenditures necessary for the proper conduct of programs, projects, services, and other activities;
(j) propose relevant bye-laws on service delivery to the District Coordination Officer; and
(k) act as Departmental Accounting Officer for his respective group of offices and be responsible to the District Accounts Committee of the Zila Council.
Clause (e), underlined above, shows that the Executive District Officer is supposed to enforce relevant Federal, Provincial laws and rules including tax laws.
As far as section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 was concerned, it being fiduciary law for the appointment of District Coordination Officers and section 26 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 specifies the delegation of power to District Coordination Officers and I hold that the provisions of section 29(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 are subject to section 26 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960.
10. As far as section 3 of the Ordinance, 1960 was concerned, it contains the heading "Power to arrest and detain suspected persons" and also contains two explanations exhaustive in nature containing different categories of persons to be brought under the Ordinance, 1960. The same section was substituted by Punjab Ordinance X of 2008 ( Supplement (2004-2009), Part I, (Punjab Statutes) 220 that instead of District Magistrate, the word "District Coordination Officer" has been brought in with the effect that how is the matter to be referred to the government following by issuance of the order and detention of the person coupled with the fact that how would the government reject the reference as well. A lot of new things have been brought in by way of making amendments in section 3 including , subsection (2) as substituted by Punjab Ordinance X of 2008, sub-sections (5), (5-a), (5-b), (5-c), (5d), (5-e), and (5-f), subsections (5-g), (5-h) and (54), subsections (6), subsections (10), subsections (11), wherein consulted efforts have been made and detailed. Section 4 is about "Powers of photographing, etc. Of suspected persons". Section 5 deals with the "Power to control suspected persons". Section 6 is about "Power.To control publications". Section 7 is "Power to prohibit entry into West Pakistan of newspapers, etc". Section 8 is "Power to secure reports of public meetings". Section 9 is "Service of orders in writing". Section 10 is "power to issue search warrants". Section 11 is "General power to search". Section 12 is "power to give effect to orders etc". Section 13 is "Penalty". Section 14 is "Abetment of offences" . Section 15 is "offence committed by corporation or association". Section 16 is "Dissemination of rumours etc".
Section 17 is "Possession or conveyance of prescribed or prohibited documents". Section 18 is "Wearing or display of uniforms or emblems". Section 19 is "Tempering with public servants". Section 20 is "Sabotage". Section 20-A is "Representation against certain orders". Section 21 is "Procedure for trial of offences". Section 22 is "offence under Ordinance to be cognizable and non-bailable".
Section 23 is "jurisdiction barred". Section 24 is "Effect or orders". Section 25 is "Operation of other penal laws not barred"
Sections 23, 24 and 25 are not found in accordance with the touchstone of fundamental rights as postulated and guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Section 26 is "Delegation of power to Deputy Commissioners". Section 27 is "Power to make rules" and section 28 deals with "Repeal and saving".
11. As I have already observed that sections 23, 24 and 25 although infringe the fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, but the saving clause vide section 28 reveals the parallel enactment of public safety and order of different Provinces and States, which nevertheless shows that the legislature wanted application of other laws in the presence of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. But even then one can revisit and refocus the provision contained in this Ordinance and can find that there are clutches placed upon the E powers of the District Coordination Officers of not using unbridled powers. Firstly, the District Coordination Officer is to apply his own mind i,e, by way of word "satisfied" used in section 3 (1) of the Ordinance, 1960 which indicates that the authority issuing detention order should apply its mind to the fact forming basis of the same and until and unless there is something tangible in the detention order, the authority issuing it cannot be said to have applied its mind objectively and that his opinion is based on reasons. The second being that in whole of the scheme, for the offender the word used is "suspected", which is futuristic in nature and one is to be put not only on the caution but on the F guard as well to protect a subject against the detention order. The present Ordinance being in contravention to the fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore, the Ordinance, 1960, itself provides G safeguards, which are not being observed by the present authority for issuance of detention orders. One may add it that a post commission of offence proceedings i,e, commission of crime, registration of F.I.R. And challan etc. Cannot be futuristically considered as one of the basis for the F issuance of detention orders as I have also tried to draw out a line in national upheaval and public order. The persons involved in hoarding, misinformation, mischievous publication, processions, public meetings, for which they are suspected and not some cases having been got registered against them, are envisaged by this Ordinance to be taken into consideration for timely detention and then release, but if suspicion persists then comes involvement of the Board for the purpose of furtherll detention.
12. Besides the above, an order of preventive detention has to satisfy the following requirements:--
(i) the Court must be satisfied that the material before the detaining authority was such that a reasonable person would be satisfied as to the necessity for making the order of preventive detention;
(ii) that satisfaction should be established with regard to each of the grounds of detention, and, if one of the grounds is shown to be bad, non-existent or irrelevant, the whole order of detention would be rendered invalid.
(iii) that initial burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of the preventive detention; and
(iv) that the detaining authority must place the whole material, upon which the order of detention is based, before the Court notwithstanding the claim of privilege with respect to any document, the validity of which claim shall be within the competence of the Court to decide.
' In addition to the above requirements, the Court has to be further satisfied. In cases falling within the preventive detention nature, that the order of detention was made by the authority, prescribed in the law J relating to preventive detention that each of requirements of the law, relating to such preventive detention should be strictly adhered to and complied with; that "satisfaction" in fact existed with regard -to the necessity of preventive detention of the person; that the grounds of detention had been furnished within the period prescribed by law, and if no such period is prescribed, then "as soon as may be", that the grounds of detention should not be vague and indefinite and should be comprehensive enough to enable the person to make representation against his detention to the authority prescribed by law; that the grounds of detention,' that is, they are not irrelevant to the aim and object of this law and that the detention should not be for extraneous consideration or for purposes which may be attacked on the ground of malice. The Court can also see whether the satisfaction of the detaining Authority about the existence of the requisite is a "satisfaction really and truly" existing in the mind of detaining Authority or "one merely professed by the detaining Authority". The order of detention which is really passed for an ulterior purpose and not because the detaining Authority is really satisfied that it is necessary to detain the intended person with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicially to certain objects will be void.
13. For what has been discussed above, it now becomes clear that the District Coordination Officer is not authorized to implement the Federal law in his way according to his whims and caprice and when one is to be suspected person only, then on considering the registration of previous cases or present cases, the detention order cannot be passed. Therefore, these petitions are allowed and the impugned detention orders are hereby set aside and quashed.