' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.--- Through this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of two writ petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The particulars of writ petition are as follows:-
(i) Khurram Shahzad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others (Writ Petition No,425-A of 2013)
(ii) Raja Azeem alias Mansoor v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others (Writ Petition No,426-A of 2013)
2. The brief and essential factsleading to the aforementioned petitions are that on the report of local police regarding indulgence of the petitioners in narcotics business and certain anti-social activities, respondent No,2, Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad has issued preventive detention orders dated 30-4-2013 of the petitioners in exercise of powers conferred' upon him under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for a period of thirty days with effect from the date of their arrest. The petitioners have impugned the said orders by filing the aforementioned writ petitions praying that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioners be released forthwith.
' It was alleged by the petitioners that they were apprehended by the local police on 30-4-2013 in false and fabricated cases under section 9-B C.N.S.A. And Articles 3/4 PO, respectively, and they were sent to Central Prison, Haripur on judicial remand; that they came to know about the impugned orders in Jail and their relatives visited the Office of respondents Nos.2, 5 and 6 to obtain the copies of impugned orders but the respondents refused to provide copies thereof and in this regard affidavits sworn by their relatives were annexed with their respective petitions.
3. Learned A.A.-G., present in Court, in a different matter, accepted notice of these petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the order of respondent No,2 was illegal, 'mala fide' without jurisdiction and in utter disregard of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the liberty of petitioners being their fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of 1973 could not be taken away by illegal exercise of jurisdiction; that the statutory requirement of the service of the impugned orders upon the petitioners has not been complied with; that the cases of narcotics alleged to have been registered against the petitioners were fabricated by the police and mere involvement in narcotics cases was no ground for issuance of preventive detention orders of the petitioners; that the petitioners were never convicted in any narcotic case and even otherwise the conviction without compliance with the provisions of section 511 of Cr.P.C. Could not be established; and that the petitioners have never indulged in any anti- social activities. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments placed reliance on 2006 M LD 154.
5. In rebuttal, learned A.A.-G. Vigorously defended the impugned orders and contended that the anti-social activities of the petitioners and their indulgence in narcotics business surely come within the scope of section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 being detrimental to public safety and maintenance of public order; that the petitioners were notorious drug peddlers and have remained involved in various such like cases; that the petitioners were constant nuisance for the area whose preventive detention was not against the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973; and that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief sought by them in these constitutional petitions.
6. Valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.
7. The record would show that petitioner Khurram Shahzad son of Nazir was arrested in case F.I.R.
No,319 dated 30-4-2013 under section 9-13 C.N.S.A. Of Police Station Mir Pur, while petitioner Raja Azeem alias Mansoor son of Raja Tabrez was arrested in case F.L R. No,318 dated 30-4-2013 under Articles 3/4 Prohibition Order (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and they were remanded to judicial custody in Central Prison, Haripur by Judicial Magistrate-III, Abbottabad. The record further reveals that respondent No,2/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad issued the impugned orders for preventive detention of the petitioners for a period of 30 days commencing from the date of their arrest under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 on the report furnished by the local police. The record placed before the Court by learned A.A.-G., which was made basis for issuance of impugned orders would reveal that only one case mentioned above has been registered against petitioner Khurram Shahzad, whereas, six number of cases under Articles 3/4 and 9-C.N.S.A. Were reported to have been registered against petitioner Raja Azeem alias Mansoor. However, no detail of these six cases registered against petitioner Raja Azeem has so far been mentioned in the police report. Moreover, the record is silent about the conviction of the petitioners in those cases. Thus, mere, involvement of the petitioners in cases of narcotics does not justify issuance of impugned orders of their preventive detention, as registration of criminal cases per se is not a valid and legal ground to curb the liberty of a person. Moreover, it was not established from the available record as to when and where the impugned orders were served upon the petitioners. Even the petitioners were not provided copies of the imugned orders by the concerned respondents and in this regard, relatives of both the petitioners have sworn affidavits which were annexed with their respective petitions. However, the petitioners were not served with the impugned orders till 13-5-2013, as was evident from letter of the District Police Officer, Abbottabad addressed to the Superintendent Central Jail, Haripur dated 13-5-2013. No record was produced by the respondents showing indulgence of the petitioners in anti-social activities justifying their preventive detention. The impugned detention order did not contain reasonable extensive material to detain an individual and curb his liberty and freedom of movement merely on the report of local police, which was certainly not sufficient to act upon it for passing the impugned orders of detention. Keeping in view the overall facts of the case, the element of 'mala fide' on the part of the local police could not be ruled out. The worthy Deputy Commissioner has, thus, acted blind-folded in purely mechanical manner without application of even semblance of independent/judicious mind manifesting height of irresponsibility in the discharge of official functions and breach of Constitutional duty contemplated by Article 5(2) of the Constitution vis-a-vis the Constitutional guarantees of the citizens.
8. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, both the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders dated 30-4-2013 passed by respondent No,2 are set aside being illegal and without lawful authority and the respondents are directed to release petitioners Khurram Shahzad and Raja Azeem alias Mansoor forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' Above are the reasons for short orders of this court of even date.