' Petitioner, a brother of the detenu Muhammad Jehangir alias Jhango, has brought this Constitutional petition to question the validity of the order, dated 3-7-1988 passed by District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, directing that Muhammad Jehangir alias Jhango shall be arrested forthwith and detained in custody of the Superintendent, District Jail, Muzaffargarh for a period of 2 months.
2. The impugned order of detention reads as follows:- "Whereas credible information has been laid before me that Muhammad Jehangir alias Jhango son of Muhammad Sharif caste Sheikh Qureshi resident of Alipur City District Muzaffargarh is acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and interest of Pakistan. He is a type of desperate outlaw drug pedlar/dealer in narcotics, habitual criminal and in a habit of taking the law into his own hand and does not hesitate to grapple with the law enforcing agencies when his illegal trade is jeopardized. His activities are detrimental to public safety and solidarity of Pakistan and it is necessary to take immediate action against him under the provisions of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order. Ordinance, 1960 for preventing him from acting in the aforesaid manner.
' Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me vide Government of the Punjab, Home Department Notification No,3-1- H-Sp1-74, dated 28th January, 1976 under section 26 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, I, Muhammad Aamer Khan, District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh hereby direct under section 3(i) of the said Ordinance that the said Muhammad Jehangir alias Jhango shall be arrested forthwith by the police and be detained in custody of the Superintendent District Jail, Muzaffargarh for a period of two months.
' The detenu shall be treated as Class III detenu.
' A copy of this order shall be delivered to the said detenu while serving the order on him. The detenu is at liberty to make a representation to the Provincial Government against the order of his detention. The memo. Of grounds for detention is enclosed.
' Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 3-7-1988."
' Grounds of detention said to have been enclosed with the order of detention are reproduced hereunder:- "(1) You are notorious drug pedlar/dealer in narcotics;
(2) You generally defy the law.
(3) You are habitual anti-social element.
(4) You take law into your hands and do not hesitate to grapple with the law enforcing agencies when your trade is jeopardized and when there is danger of apprehension.
(5) You instigate the anti-social elements to violence against the peace-loving citizens of the country.
(6) You are a desperate, dangerous and habitual criminal and found involved in cases, the list of which is enclosed as Annexure A'."
' It was stated in the memorandum of grounds that 'your nefarious activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public orders and are likely to continue if you are not detained.' It was further stated therein that the grounds and reasons for detention were being communicated to the detenu to enable him to make, if he so desired, a representation to the Provincial Government.
3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the detenu was arrested in a case under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 on 14-5-1988. He was allowed bail in that case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, vide order dated 29-6-1988 and the petitioner was also released but soon thereafter, he was again arrested. According to comments submitted by the District Magistrate, the arrest of the detenu made on 29-6-1988 was under section 54, Cr.P.C. In a case F.I.R. No, 74, dated 15-1987 registered under section 457/380, P.P.C.
At Police Station, City Alipur. He was then remanded to the police custody on 30-6-1988 and while in custody, the impugned order of detention was passed against him. In the circumstances, the impugned order was sought to be challenged on the ground of mala fides and it was stated in the writ petition that a stereotype order was passed wherein only the name of the detenu and the period of detention had been filed without any application of mind by the detaining authority to the grounds of detention. It was further stated in the writ petition that the grounds of detention served upon the detenu were vague in nature and had no application to his case. Petitioner denied that the detenu had any criminal history as he was not a previous convict and it was submitted that the fact that the detenu was involved in a criminal case could not be made the basis for detaining him.
4. No one has appeared for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General. He has submitted the parawise comments and has placed on record a list of criminal cases registered against the detenu. According to this list, the detenu was involved in the following two cases:- "(1) Case F.I.R. No, 204, dated 23-9-1981 under section 4/4/79, Islamic Law Police Station Alipur.
(2) Case F.I.R. No, 107, dated 14-5-1988, under section 3/4/4/79 Islamic Law Police Station City Alipur."
Learned Assistant Advocate-General is unable to state whether the first aforementioned case registered in the year 1981 has been decided or is still pending. However, the second case registered on 14-5-1988 is stated to be still pending adjudication. Learned Assistant Advocate- General has quite frankly submitted that apart from the aforementioned two criminal cases registered against the detenu, there is no other material available on the record with him. He has, however, argued that the fact that the petitioner was involved in the cases under the Prohibition Order amply justifies the grounds mentioned at serial Nos. 1 and 6 in the memorandum of grounds namely that he was 'notorious drug pedlar/dealer in narcotics' and 'a desperate dangerous and habitual criminal and found involved in cases, the list of which is enclosed as Annexure 'A'. I am afraid, I cannot accept this argument. The mere fact that two cases were registered against the detenu over a period of seven years can by no means justify the conclusion that he was a notorious drug pedlar/dealer in narcotics or that he was a desperate, dangerous and habitual criminal particularly when he was not shown to have been found guilty by any Court in this case.
Respondents have not even placed on record copies of the F.I.R. From which the exact nature of accusation made therein could be ascertained. In the circumstances, on the present material, grounds Nos. 1 and 6 mentioned in the memorandum of grounds cannot be said to be justified.
5. As regards the remaining grounds mentioned at serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the memorandum of grounds, no material at all has been placed on the record in support thereof. These grounds are, therefore, wholly non-existent. Thus, apart from what has been held above, even if it be assumed that there was any justification for the grounds mentioned at serial Nos. 1 and 6 in the memorandum on the basis of the detenu being involved in two cases under the Prohibition Order, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained for the law is fairly well-settled that if one of the grounds of detention is bad or is non-existent or is irrelevant, the whole order of detention is rendered invalid. Refer Rehmat Elahi v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1965 Lah. 112 which was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Pakistan v.
Haider Bakhsh Jatoi PLD 1969 SC 210. Reference may also usefully be made to the following opinion expressed by Gawyer, C.J. In Keshew Talpada v. Emperor AIR 1943 FC 1 quoted in the case of Haider Bakhsh Jatoi:- "If a detaining authority gives four reasons for detaining a man without distinguishing between them, and any two or three of the reasons are held to be bad, it can never be certain to what extent the had reasons operated on the mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them."
6. I also find considerable force in the submission of the petitioner that the grounds stated by the detaining authority are vague and short of necessary details with the result that on the basis of these grounds it was not possible for the detenu to make an effective representation to the Provincial Government. The impugned order is liable to be struck down on this short ground alone.
Refer Muhammad Ajmal Khan v. District Magistrate, Lyallpur and 4 others PLD 1977 Lah. 20 wherein it was held "it has been argued that ground No,2 is not vague inasmuch as the detenu has been accused of meeting labour leaders at his residence on 27th of September, 1975 when he came out of jail. According to the learned counsel for the respondent's time and place being clearly given in the ground the same cannot be termed to be vague. We however, do not find force in this contention. The names of the labour leaders whom the detenu is alleged to have .Met have not been given. The test for finding out whether a particular ground is vague or not is whether an effective representation apart from a bare denial of the accusation conveyed to the detenu can be made by him".
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of detention is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and it is directed that the detenu be set at liberty and released forthwith unless wanted in some F. Other case. Writ petition is thus, accepted but there shall be no order as to costs. 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.