OF REFERENCE Deputy Registrar (Judicial) contacted L-G. Police on telephone, on 8-5-1982 and asked him if he had received the orders of this Court dated 21-4-1982 requiring him to submit comments under his own signatures. He said that he will inform him (D. R. Judi.) about this after a short while and he noted down the telephone number of Deputy Registrar (Judicial). He came to know of it the same day that he had not received the process of this Court. It was his legal duty to inform Deputy Registrar (Judicial) that he had not received the process of the Court. Probably, he .Thought it below his dignity to contact the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on telephone. It was an order of the Court, which was to be complied with. The action of the I.-G. Police in not informing the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on telephone is disapproved.
2. Since I.-G. Sent the intimation indirectly through A. I.-G. (Legal) Mr. Asif Ali and his Assistant Mr. Shuja-ud-Din and has also passed an order for holding an inquiry into the matter, I do not feel inclined to take action against him. ORDFR ' Mst. Razia Begum filed this petition under Article 9 .Of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 read with. Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. She had impleaded Farooq Ahmad Khan, Inspector, Police Station Krishan Nagar, Lahore, and Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore as respondents in the petition. She alleged that her son Tariq Mahmood had an altercation with Farooq Ahmad respondent No. 1 and for that reason, he was involved in two theft cases but later released on bail that Tariq Mahmood was arrested in case F. I. R. No, 253/81, but he was discharged by the Court ; that one A. S. I. Attached to Police Station Krishan Nagar was in search of Tariq Mahmood, but was unable to arrest him ; that Farooq Ahmad respandent No. 1 using his authority maliciously wanted to involve Tariq Mahmood in theft cases ; that respondent No. 1 had sent the name of Tariq Mahmood to I.-G. Police for getting the order of detention that respondent No. 1 had submitted false and wrong information with ulterior motive to respondent No, 2 for obtaining the order of detention against Tariq Mahmood and his action was not warranted under any law. A prayer was made for the release of Tariq Mahmood from illegal detention.
2. In the first instance, notice was issued to respondent No. 1 only. He was directed to produce the relevant record. On the next date, respondent No. 1 was directed to supply the list of cases in which, the detenu was involved. The list was accordingly supplied. Since there was a reference of respondent No, 2 in the petition, comments were also called for from respondent No,
2. Both the respondents submitted the comments. Respondent No. 1 stated in the comments that the detenu was involved in the theft cases of motorcycles and was also arrested in another case under section 54, Cr. P. C. But was discharged. It was further stated that the detenu was involved in seven/eight cases and in one case bearing F. I. R. No, 110/81 under section 379, P. P. C. He was declared proclaimed offender. He also pointed out that the order of detention had been passed by Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid, D. M. L. A. Sector I, Lahore.
3. In his comments, Inspector-General Police stated that no list of hardened criminals, which included the name of the detenu was sent by respondent No. 1 to him for getting the order of detention. It was further stated that he had no concern with the order of detention passed against the detenu.
4. Notice had also been issued to the Advocate-General, Mr. Khalil Ramday, Assistant Advocate- General appeared on 5-5-1982.
5. The order of detention dated 28-2-1982 passed by Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid. Acting D.
M. L. A. Sector-1 was examined. The question cropped up as to whether or not Acting D. M. L. A. Could pass an order of detention under C. M. L.
0. No, 12 as reconstituted by C. M. L.O. No, 78 and amended by C. M. L.
0. No, 82 C. M. L.
0. No, 12 was made and issued on 20-7-1977. It is provided in the said Order that where with respect to any person the C. M. L. A. Is of the opinion that, for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the purpose for which Martial Law has been proclaimed or the security of Pakistan, the public safety or interest, the defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in any part of Pakistan or the efficient conduct of Martial Law, it is necessary so to do, the C. M. L. A. May make an order-
(a) directing that he be detained ;
(b) requiring him to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Pakistan as may be specified in the order ;
(c) imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order in respect of his employment or business, and in respect of his activities in relation to the dissemination of news or propagation of opinion ; and
(d) otherwise regulating his conduct in regard to any matter as specified in the order.
' C. M. L.
0. No, 24 was made and issued on 12-11-1977 and under this Order, Martial Law Administrator could also exercise the powers under C. M. L.
0. No, 12 C. M. L.
0. No, 33 was made and issued on 31-1-1978 and under this Order, a Deputy Martial Law Administrator holding the rank of Major-General could pass an order under C. M. L.
0. No,
12. On 26.5-1980, the Chief Martial Law Administrator made and issued C. M. L.
0. No, 78, whereby C. M. L.
0. No, 12 was reconstituted. Sub-para. 3 is relevant for the purposes of the decision of this petition. It is provided in paragraph 3 that where with respect to any person the C. M. L. A. Or a Martial Law Administrator is of the opinion that, for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the purpose for which Martial Law has been proclaimed or to the security of Pakistan, the public safety, maintenance of public order or interest, the defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in any part of Pakistan or the efficient conduct of Martial Law or prejudicial to Pakistan's relations with any other power, it is necessary so to do, the C.
M. L. A. Or a Martial Law Administrator may make an order --
(a) directing that he be detained ;
(b) requiring him to reside or remain in such place or within such area in Pakisan as may be specified in the order ;
(c) imposing upon him such restrictions as may be specified in the order in respect of his employment or business, or in respect of his activities in relation to the dissemination of news or propagation of opinion ;
(d) otherwise regulating his conduct in regard to any matter as specified in the Order.
By virtue of C. M. L.
0. No, 82 made and issued on 21-9-1980, a Deputy Martial Law Administrator could also pass an order under C. M. L.
0. No. 1 as reconstituted by C. M. L.
0. No,
78. These powers had not been given to the Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator. Where a Martial La Order is issued by the C. M. L. A. a Martial Law Administrator cannot make any amendment in the said Order. If the C. M. L. A. Wanted to give this power to the Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator, such an order would have been made by the C. M. L. A. The learned Assistant Advocate General agreed on the issue that three persons, viz. : C. M. L. A., M. L. A. And D. M.
L. A. Could pass an order under C. M. L.
0. No, 12 as reconsti tuted by C. M. L.
0. No, 78 and further amended by C. M. L.
0. No, 82 and that Acting D. M. L. A. Could not pass an order of detention. The learned Assistant Advocate-General after arguing the case at some length, sought an adjournment in order to check up as to when, with what powers and who had appointed Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid as Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector I.
6. The original order of appointment of Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid was produced in Court on 19-5-1982. In this order, Martial Law Administrator appointed Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid as Deputy Martial Law Administrator. Sectot-1 (Lahore Division) vice Major-General Ghulam Rabbani Khan, who proceeded on temporary duty with effect from 24th February, 1982 to 28th February, 1982. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that the Martial Law Administrator had appointed Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid as Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector-1 and he was not appointed as Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector-1. He also submitted that the Martial Law Administrator was competent to appoint a person for for days and that the capacity of Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid was that of Deputy Martial Law Administrator from 24th February, 1982 to 28th February, 1982. It was further urged that Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid miss described himself as Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator and this misdescription of the office was not material for the purpose of determining the validity of the order.
7. I have carefully gone through the Martial Law Order No, 901, dated 23-2-1982 issued by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone-A. This Martial Law Order pertains to the appointment of Deputy. Martial Law Administrator, Sector-1 (Lahore Division). It does not make mention of appointment of Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator. In the main order also, it has been specifically stated that Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid is appointed as Deputy Martial Law Administratar, Sector-1 (Lahore Division). The order of detention was passed on 28-2-1982. Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid had passed that order in the capacity of Deputy Martial Law Administrator. I fully agree with the learned Assistant Advocate-General that Brigadier Sardar Muhammad Khalid miss described himself as Acting Deputy Martial Law Administrator. Since the order of detention against Tariq Mahmood bad been passed by D. M. L. A. On 28-2.1982, the said order could not be called into question.
8. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed.