' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks direction of this Court in the name of the respondent (Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore) to delete his name from the list prepared under Fourth Schedule to section 11EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and also to restrain the respondent from illegally harassing him and his family.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the name of the petitioner was placed in Fourth Schedule of section 11 EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 vide Order No,9-55-H-SPL- 1106, dated A 27-6-2006 and he was required to execute a bond for keeping good behavior for a period of three years; during the said period of time, his movements were curtailed and few restrictions were imposed upon him including the one that he would inform and seek prior permission of the local police station before he moves to any other place beyond the jurisdiction of said police station and he would not enter the places mentioned under section 1 1 EE(2)(a) of the Act, ibid; the ordeal of the petitioner continued for as many as five years, which was brought to an end by this Court vide order dated 10-3-2011 passed in Writ Petition No,1528 of 2011, when it was directed that the name of the petitioner be deleted from Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as the law did not permit it to curtail his liberties for a period exceeding three years under the garb of the aforesaid order. The case of the petitioner, after direction of this Court, was taken up by the Home Department and his name was deleted from the Fourth Schedule on 5-5-2011, but with a cunningness his name was again placed in the said Schedule on the same day i,e, 5-5-2011, without affording him any opportunity to rejoice the deletion of his name by the Home Department, hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to section 11EE of the Act, only names of those persons could be inserted in the Fourth Schedule, who were activists or office- bearers of some proscribed organization or involved in sectarian activities or any such activities which are detrimental to public peace and tranquillity; the name of the petitioner had been placed in the said Schedule without any cogent or confidence inspiring material and-he had been victimized under the aforesaid order; the petitioner had no link or concern with any proscribed organization nor he was an activist thereof, still, the wrath of the establishment fell upon him; no evidence exists on record to justify the repeated placement of the name of the petitioner in Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and it has been done in a bizarre way without caring for the requirement of the law, equity and justice; the Authority could not collect any data regarding the alleged detrimental activities of the petitioner either at the time of placement of his name in Fourth Schedule on 27-6-2006 nor they could discover same even on 5-5-2011; the impugned order has been passed by Home Department, Government of Punjab, the respondent, maliciously and the liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without caring for the safeguards provided by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; the impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and it may be ordered to be recalled.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab resisted this plea with the submission that the petitioner did not file any appeal before the Provincial Government as provided in subsection (3) of section 11 EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; sufficient evidence had been provided by the law enforcing, agencies (District Investigation Committee) against the petitioner hinting at his unwholesome, uncalled for and dangerous activities, which prompted the Authority to issue the order in question. Further submits that the name of the petitioner has been rightly placed in Fourth Schedule of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997; the mere fact that the petitioner has not been convicted in any criminal case does not necessarily mean that he did not have links with any proscribed organization.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the activities of the petitioner were allegedly found detrimental and hazardous to the public peace and tranquility, maintenance of public order and sectarian harmony by the Home Department for placement of his name in Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 but such activities were never' disclosed nor brought on record to justify the issuance of aforesaid order dated 27-6-2006, which lasted for five years and was finally recalled on 5-5-2011, as mentioned hereinbefore. If the sorrowful tale of the petitioner had been brought to an end by this Court vide order dated 10-3-2011, the Home Department toyed with the matter and instead of deleting the name of the petitioner from the Fourth Schedule in the real sense resorted to an unlawful exercise mentioned hereinbefore, which could not be approved of under any circumstance. We have gone through the impugned order annexed with the instant petition and find that no evidence or reason has been offered by the respondent-Secretary, Home Department, Government of Punjab, to justify the issuance of the impugned order. Except for a bald assertion that D.I.C. Had some secret information/data against the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, could not come up with a clear answer and indication as to the availability of the material/reasons, which formed basis for issuance of the above-said order.
6. A person having, links with proscribed organization being activist thereof or falling into such activities, which may endanger the whole fabric of the society or threaten public peace, tranquility or cause fanning out of religious and sectarian hatred etc., must be placed under Fourth Schedule as the said provision of law has been brought on the Statute Book for the said purpose, but in the instant case, no such reason has been offered or no such evidence has been hinted at either by the Authority or by the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, which could justify the action of the respondent for placing the name of the petitioner in the Fourth Schedule as Re-entry on 5-5- 2011 immediately on deletion of his name from the said schedule, which, for the first time, had been inserted through order dated 27-6-2006. It appears to be an overdoing on the part of the respondent, who instead of having learnt a lesson from the mistake committed by him earlier repeated the same at the cost of liberty of a citizen (the petitioner) guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We do not find any good reason to believe that the impugned order or the repeated order dated 5-5-2011, had been passed by the respondent on some sound reasoning and believable evidence, which ought to have been hinted at, if there was any. The mechanical exercise undertaken by the respondent does no good to the society or to the law arid order situation or maintenance of public order or religious/sectarian harmony. It rather appears to be an eye-wash, which certainly militates against the requirement of law.
7. Therefore; we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 5-5-2001 with a direction to the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab that name of the petitioner be get removed from the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 forthwith.