' ABDUL HAVEE KURESBI, J.-Initially a petition was filed by petitioner Fazal Ellahi, challenging the detention of one Mohammad Ayub son of Mohammad Tufail under orders of the Government of Sind in the Home Department dated 14-6-1975. It appears from annexure 'A' to the petition that the order proceeded on recording of a satisfaction by the Government that the detenu Mohammad Ayub had been indulging in smuggling of narcotics and had a network of currency racket with sources and contacts in foreign countries ; and such allegations, in view of the Government, amounted to acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public Order. This initial order was challenged by way of a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Thereafter, the detenu by an order dated 21-10-1975 was granted bail by a Division Bench of this Court, constituted by our Lord the Chief, Justice and our learned brother Naimuddin, J.
It appears that security was furnished so that the detenu was entitled to be released on bail.
Immediately on his release the detenu was served with another order purporting to have been passed in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 32(d) and (f) read with Rule 213 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
' We would at this stage state that the earlier order passed by the Division Bench for grant of bail proceeded of an admission by the learned State Counsel appearing in the case to the effect that the grounds of detention in regard to the initial order of detention were supplied to the detenu far later than the time prescribed therefor under Article 100) of the Constitution.
2. After the order under Rule 32(d) and (f) was passed and served on the detenu the petition was amended. It will be of benefit to reproduce such part of the order which details the grounds of internment or house arrest, which no doubt amounts to preventive detention, and the same reads as follows :- "No, 19083: Whereas the Provincial Government of Sind is of the opinion with reset to Mohammad Ayub @ Mohammad Iqbal son of Mohammad Tufail, residence of Karachi that for the purpose of preventing the said Mohammad Ayub @ Mohammad lqbal from acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of Pakistan by smuggling charas outside the country in contravention of the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by law for the time being in force, it is necessary to order the said Mohammad Ayub @ Mohammad Iqbal to reside and remain in the specified place and to impose upon him restriction not to communicate with any person ;" etc. Etc. ' We have heard Mr. Choudhry Iftikhar Ahmed for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hafiz Lakho for the State.
3. Among others the main contention of Mr. Choudhry Iftikhar Ahmed is that the order of house arrest or detention of a person in his house or restriction of his movements is an order of preventive detention.
' There is considerable authority and I should say weighty pronouncements of the superior Courts of this country in such regard. On such view of the matter Article 10(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan would be directly attracted so that the grounds of detention have to be supplied within the stipulated time. It is conceded case that grounds of detention have not been supplied, but the learned Additional Advocate-General has urged before us that such grounds are incorporated in the order itself. We have reproduced the order that has been impugned by the amended petition and as far as we can understand the Additional Advocate-General, his only submission was that a bare and bald statement to the effect that the detenu was "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of Pakistan by smuggling charas outside the country", would be sufficient compliance with the terms of Article 10(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan. To say the least, the statement of facts, such as appears, is indeed worse than vague. Nothing has been stated to indicate as to the nature of acts done by the detenu or whether the detenu was over apprehended in the act or acts forming the foundation for such order. The question that then arises is whether the order can be sustained on such bare statement of the grounds as is being canvassed before us by the learned Additional Advocate-General. We are clearly of the view that the purpose underlying the supply of grounds of detention to the detenu is no other than to provide the detenu, with material sufficient as to put him in the know of facts, on the basis of which the order proceeds; and also to make an effective representation by providing material in rebuttal. To quote a simple instance, a person may be branded as smuggler but the information that may have been lodged before the Government may be wrong factually, and unless the particulars of his acts are given to the detenu he would not at all be tin a position or capacity to rebut such an allegation, even though on the alleged date of the commission of such offence he may not have been in the country or he may be suffering from such circumstances as may even have disabled him from doing the act on the basis whereof the order of preventive detention proceeds. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that the present order under Rule 32(d) and (f)is not sufficient compliance of Article 10(5) of the Constitution. No grounds have been supplied and for such reason alone this petition should succeed.
4. We, therefore, allow this petition and hold that the order passed by the Government of Sind on 23-10-1975 detaining the detenu Mohammad Ayub alias Mohammad Iqbal in his house and preventing him from associating or communicating with any person except the members of his family, is an order passed in an unlawful manner and of no legal effect. We, therefore, strike down this order and hold that the order is rendered as of no legal effect.
5. Since this petition has been disposed of on this short ground we would also record the statement made at the Bar by the learned Additional Advocate-General to the effect that the earlier order of detention of the detenu which was initially challenged in this petition had been substituted by the present order of house arrest.
' This petition therefore, stands disposed of and there shall be no order as to costs.