JUDGMENT TANV1R AHMAD KHAN, J.--The petitioner has filed this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenging his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Gujrat on 11.3.1990 under clause (a) of sub-section (i) of Section 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 whereby he has been detained for a period of 90 days. Alongwith the detention order grounds thereof have also been enclosed which are as under:-
1. That according to the police record six criminal cases were registered against you. You were acquitted in Case FIR No.247 dated 27.6.82 u/s 302/34 PPC Police Station Sadar Gujrat. You are still facing five criminal cases pending in different courts and it has been reported by the local police that the witnesses are being threatened by you to get the statements in your favour in the above said cases.
2. That you are a man of desperate character, openly defy law and cause harassment to the law- abiding people and in this connection a report to this effect was recorded in the Security Branch of S.P. Office oj 5.3.1990.
3. That these dangerous activities on your part were also taken notice Qi by the public at large and 'Anjuman-e-Tajran Gujrat' showed they apprehension of breach of peace from your side and submitted a written application to the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are vague in nature and do not demonstrate the independent application of mind by the detaining authority. He has further stated that no material has been brought on record to substantiate the assertion that the detenu had ever threatened the witnesses of the afore stated criminal cases allegedly pending against him. Similarly, it has been asserted that the detenu has been dubbed as a man of desperate character simply on the report of a Security Branch dated 5.3.1990. Lastly it has been argued that a bald reference has also been made to an application submitted allegedly by the Anjuman-e-Tajran Gujrat wherein wild allegations have been levelled against the petitioner to the effect that the claimed himself to be spokesman of Rehri Walas of the area and had threatened that he would not allow any body to interfere with their business.
3. The learned Law Officer has supported the impugned detention mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a man of desperate character and certain criminal cases also stand registered against him. He has also referred to the afore stated application of the Anjuman-e-Tajran Gujrat.
4. I have considered the contentions. The detaining authority has mainly been influenced by the pendency of criminal cases against the detenu. In the memorandum of grounds only numbers of cases, registered against the detenu, were given without providing any detail. However, in the written statement the numbers of the five criminal cases pending against the petitioner a re given as under:-
1. Case FIR No.501 dated 24.8.1985 u/s 13/20/65 A.O. P.S. Sader Gujrat.
2. Case FIR No.405 dated 24.6.1986 u/s 307/452/148/149 PPC P.S. Sadar Gujrat.
3. Case FIR No.301 dated 24.10.1988 u/s 13.20/65 A.O. P.S B/Div. Gujrat.
4. Case FIR No.294 dated 29.8.1989 u/s 506 PPC P.S. B/Div. Gujrat.
5. Case FIR No.40 dated 7.3.1990 u/s 506 PPC P.S. B/Div. Gujrat.
It is not disputed that tin order to maintain law and order, the administration can detain a person to obviate his apprehended future acts. While considering the desirability of passing a detention order, the past conduct of an individual may be a relevant factor. But a detention order cannot be justified if it is passed mainly on the basis of past criminal cases without there being any fresh material. There must be some other convincing and relevant fresh material justifying the action of the executive in depriving an individual of his liberty. Here in this case simply numbers of cases, pending against the petitioner, were given without providing any detail which ground is to vague to be acted upon. 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 can be made (1989 P.Cr.L.J.
414) "Abdul Latif. Vs. District Magistrate. Muzaffargarh:. Further more no material has been brought on record to substantiate the assertion that the detenu has ever threatened the witnesses of the aforesaid cases. Keeping the afore stated test of vagueness in mind ground No.1 cannot be justified on any score. Similarly the detenu has been dubbed as a man of desperate character simply on one report of the security branch of S.P. Office dated 5.3.1990 which is neither here nor there. No material whatsoever has even been mentioned to support the contention in the written statement.
Lastly the bald reference to the application of Anjuman-e- Tajran Gujrat, levelling wild allegations against the petitioner, would not advance the case of the detaining authority any further. This application is too vague to b relied upon, lt is neither dated nor any number of the same is mentioned though it is addressed on the printed pad of the Anjuman where proper space has been provided both for date as well as number. Even otherwise the contents of this application wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has threatened that he would not let any body to interfere with the rights of the Rehri Walas. Has not been supported through any independent material. No concrete incident has been reported in support of this threat.
5. In view of what has been stated above, all the grounds are vague as they lack necessary details with the result that a proper and effective representation cannot be made on the basis of these grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order of the detention is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is directed that the alleged detenu be released forth-with, if not required in any other case. Parties are left to bear their own costs.