' This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, calls in question the order, dated 13-12-1982, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, whereby the restrictee, Nathanial Naz, was ordered not to enter, reside or remain within the revenue limits of Sialkot District, for a period of two months, under section 5(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the "Ordinance") as without lawful authority.
2. The impugned order reads thus :- "Whereas I, shoukat Ali Rana, Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, am satisfied with respect to Mr. N. Naz, Councillor (on Minority Seat), resident of Mohallah Machine, Jhelum City with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order as hereinafter appearing.
(2) Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, I, shoukat All Rana, Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, direct that the said Mr. N. Naz, Councillor (on Minority Seat), resident of Mohallah Machine, Jhelum City shall not enter, reside or remain within the revenue limits of Sialkot District.
(3) This order shall take effect from 13th December, 1982 and shall remain in force for a period of two months.
(4) Given under my hand and the Seal of the Court this 13th day of December, 1982.(Sd.)
Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot."
The petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the grounds taken therein are vague and do not furnish an material and, therefore, such grounds cannot form the basis of a valid order under the Ordinance. A bare reading of the impugned order would show A that it discloses no material warranting invocation of the provisions of section 5(1)(a) of the Ordinance, and the grounds which led to the passing of the impugned order have not been particularized to enable him to make an effect tie statutory representation to the Home Secretary.
The test to determine whether particular ground is vague or otherwise is whether an effective representation, apart from a bare denial of accusation, can be made by the person B against whom an order has been passed under section 5 of the Ordinance. In the instant case, not to speak of vague grounds, no grounds at all have been given for passing the impugned order: This being so, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is accepted with costs and the impugned order, dated 13th of December, 1982, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, is, hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.