I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Attorney-General.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Agha Shorish Kashmiri v. The State (PLD1969SC14) and Malik Ghulam Jillani v. The State (PLD1967SC373) for raising a contention that the grounds of detention had to be stated and the same have to be objective.
2. Learned Deputy Attorney-General does not dispute the proposition of law laid in the referred cases. However, his contention is that it is factually wrong that the grounds of detention have not been communicated to the petitioner. According to the learned Deputy Attorney-General each time the grounds have been specifically stated and communicated to the petitioner. The learned Deputy Atorney --General has placed for my perusal the confidential file containing the date against the petitioner and I do not consider it expedient in the interest of State to reproduce the same, suffice it to say that the detaining authorities have reasons to believe that the petitioner has been indulging in espionage for India and in that connection he illegally visited India 22 times and there contacted the Indian Intelli--gence Authorities and passed over information, prejudicial to the interests/ of the country.
3. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.