TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner assails the vires of order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur (Respondent No.5), whereby he has ordered his detention for a period of 30 days under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (the "Ordinance"). The impugned order reads as under: OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAHAWALPUR Whereas, it has been brought to my notice by the District Police Officer, Bahawalpur, vide his Letter No.28879/SB dated 30.12.2019, that Muhammad Mohsin Urf Gomi son of Talib Hussain, Caste Kulachi, resident of Moaza Sukhail, Tehsil Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, is remained involved in heinous criminal cases. He is not only habitual criminal but an active as well as land grabber. His activities are anti-social and he always remained indulge in creating law and order situation in the district. He has also been involved in the activities prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility, as he instigates the people to create disturbance in maintaining law and order and not to cooperate with LEAs and District Administration. In prevailing Law and Order situation, if he remains free, he will indulge in the activities prejudicial to public peace and tranquility. His activities are dangerous and creating disharmony in the area due to which people of the locality are feeling insecurity.
2. AND WEREAS, based upon evidence material placed before me, I am convinced that presence of that Muhammad Mohsin Urf Gomi son of Talib Hussain, Caste Kulachi at any public place and at large will pose grave threat to the public safety and is likely to cause breach of public peace and order.
3. Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under subsection (1) of section (3) read with section 26 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and Notification Of Home Department No. SO(Judl-III)2- 1/2017 dated 20.7.2017. I, Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, order that the above mentioned person be arrested and detained for a period of 30 days with immediate effect (date of arrest). His custody shall be placed under the Superintendent of New Central Jail, Bahawalpar, for detention at New Central Jail, Bahawalpur.
4. The grounds of this order have been attached.
5. The detenue shall have a right to make representation against this order to the government.
Sd/- Deputy Commissioner The learned counsel contends that the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 is bad in law. He argues that, firstly, it is vague. Secondly, there 'is not a whit of evidence that the Petitioner is a threat to public peace and tranquility. Respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order mechanically without satisfying himself that his detention is necessary. Thirdly, the mere fact that the Petitioner has a criminal record cannot form basis for an order of preventive detention.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition. He contends that it is not competent because the Petitioner has not availed alternate remedy under section 5(5) of the Ordinance which provides for representation before the government. He further contends that no exception can be taken to the impugned order because the Petitioner is a threat to public peace and he cannot be let loose. It was the constitutional duty of the administration to maintain law and order and protect lives of the people.
4. Respondent No.5 has submitted report and parawise comments. Defending his impugned order he states that the Petitioner is not only a habitual offender but has close relationship with criminals and aids and abets them in commission of offences. He is an anti-social element and instigates people to create law and order situation in the district. Further, he does not cooperate with LEAs and the District Administration.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The objection relating to the maintainability of this constitutional petition deserves a short shrift.
There is a plethora of authorities which say that mere availability of alternate remedy by way of representation to the government against detention order does not fetter constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In "Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur" (1999 PCr.LJ 2014), this Court repelled the objection relating to maintainability of the constitutional petition as has been raised in the instant case holding as under: "At the very outset, I would express that before the filing of this writ petition, the making of a representation or preference of appeal before the Secretary Home Department, Government of the Punjab, is not necessary. It has been held in Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani v. Government of the Punjab (PLD 1984 Lah. 222) and Azad Papers (Jasarat) v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1974 Kar. 81) that availability of alternate remedy of making representation to the Provincial Government against the impugned order does not oust and eclipse the jurisdiction of the constitutional court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of the instant nature. This objection of the learned Assistant Advocate General is overruled."
7. More recently, in "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad v. Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja and others" (PLD 2003 SC 442), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held: "The right of a person to a petition for habeas corpus is a high prerogative right and is a constitutional remedy for all matters of illegal confinement. This is one of the most fundamental rights known to the Constitution. There being limitation placed on the exercise of this right, it cannot be imported on the actual or assumed restriction which may be imposed by any subordinate legislation. If the arrest of a person cannot be justified in law, there is no reason why that person should not be able to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court immediately for the restoration of his liberty which is his basic right. In all cases where a person is detained and he alleges that his detention is unconstitutional and in violation of the safeguards provided in the Constitution, or that it does not fall within the statutory requirements of the law under which the detention is ordered, he can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 199 and ask to be released forth with. "
8. Respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2019 purportedly under section 3(1) of the Ordinance. The said provision came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja's case, supra. It inter alia held that the ground of detention should be definite and not vague and before passing an order of preventive detention the competent authority should have all the relevant material before it and satisfy itself that the detention of the person is absolutely necessary. The "satisfaction" should be established with regard to each of the grounds of detention and if one of the said grounds is shown to be bad, non- existent or irrelevant, the whole order of detention would become invalid. In the instant case, Respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order mechanically on the report of the District Police Officer, Bahawalpur (Respondent No.2), without caring for legal requirements. The ground that the Petitioner is engaged in anti-social activities is vague and not supported by any tangible evidence.
Further, Respondent No.5 has held that the Petitioner is a threat to public peace for the only reason that he has a criminal history and is a habitual offender. Jurisprudence is pretty well settled that the mere fact that a person has been involved in certain criminal cases and associates with other people of bad character does not justify his preventive B detention. Reference may be usefully made to "Umer Din alias Umroo v. S.H.O., Bhai Pheru and 3 others" (1990 PCr.LJ 948) "Mehmood v The State" (1990 PCr.LJ 1529) "Bashiran Bibi v. The District Magistrate, Kasur" (1990 PCr.LJ 913)
"Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 6 others v. The District Magistrate, Batagram and another (1995 PCr.LJ 587), "Muhammad Mushtaq v. District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and another" (1997 MLD 1658), "Inayat Ullah v. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and another" (1998 PCr.LJ 3) and "Syed Mubashar Raza v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Home Department and 2 others" PLD 2015 Lah. 20).
9. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and quashed. The Petitioner shall be released forthwith if not required in some other case.