' Through this Constitutional petition Mst. Aziz Mai wants this Court to declare the order, dated 11-6- 1988 of learned District Magistrate, Bahawalpur whereby Ghulam Hussain was ordered to be detained for 2 months to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. On the recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur based on the following report of S.H.O., P.S. Musaffar hana:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' the learned District Magistrate, Bahawalpur ordered for the detention of Ghulam Hussain on the following grounds:-
(i) You are a desperate, hardened criminal.
(ii) You are indulging in anti-social activities." Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the detenu has been acquitted in all the aforementioned cases on basis whereof, the learned District Magistrate had passed the impugned, order, 'therefore, there was no ground at all for his detention. The learned AA.-G. Has supported the impugned order.
4, I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care, I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that although it was very much clear from the report of the Police that the detenu had been acquitted in cases F.I.Rs, Nos.
234/74, 121/78 and 150/85 yet the learned District Magistrate did not consider this aspect of the case. It may be noted here that the word 'grounds' does not mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of section 3 of Ordinance XXXI of 1960. It means something more i,e, factual constituent of the grounds on which the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. The basic fact and material particulars, therefore, which are the foundation of the order of detention will also be covered by grounds within the contemplation of the Ordinance. That being the position it can safely be said that the involvement of the detenu in 3 out of the 5 cases which were the basis of the order of detention could not have been made the grounds of detention. This infirmity per se will render the entire order of the detention as illegal.
Furthermore, the grounds given in the memorandum of grounds of detention that the detenu was a desperate hardened criminal and was indulging in anti-social activities are vague. It is Constitutional duty of this Court to protect liberty of Citizens.
5. For what has been said above, there is no option but to strike down the impugned order as being illegal and having been passed without lawful authority. The detenu has already been ordered to be released vide short order of even date. .