MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN; J.-The petitioner, Mst. Kaniz Fatima alias Azra alias Thanedarni, was arrayed before the District Tribunal, Lahore, under the West Pakistan (Control of Goondas) Ordinance, 1959, which by its order, dated the 15th of October 1963, declared her to be a Goonda, besides imposing some restrictions upon her under section 14(d) and (e) of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, and required her to furnish a security in ;he amount of Rs. 2,000 with one surety and a personal bond to keep good behaviour for a period of one year.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order which was accepted by the Commissioner only so far as it related to the restrictions under subsections (d) and (e) of section 14 and the order of the Tribunal was set aside only to this extent. .
3. The High Court affirmed the order of the Commissioner when a revision petition was presented to it.
4. The petitioner was again arrayed before the Tribunal on 17th April 1967 under sections 13 and 14 of the Ordinance. It was prayed that:
(i) the petitioner be declared a Goonda under section 13 of the Ordinance ;
(ii) she be enquired to .Furnish security in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties in the same amount for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years ; and
(iii) that she be expelled from the limits of Corporation of the City of Lahore and she be confined to the limits of Police Station Sarai Mughal.
5. The District Tribunal by its notice dated the 18th of May 1967 required the petitioner to show cause why she should not be required to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for two years to keep the peace and why she should not be confined to the limits of a particular police station. Meanwhile, an order was passed on 18th April 1967 against the petitioner rejecting the application for bail presented by the petitioner and directing that she be confined in the lock-up.
6. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order, dated 18th April 1967, before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, and Mr. Mukhtar Masud, who held that post, by his order, dated 25th April 1967 rejected the appeal.
Hence this petition.
7. The main point urged before us is that when a person is declared to be a Goonda under section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, he continues to be so branded till an order is passed under section 25 of the said Ordinance removing his name from the list of Goondas. Since no such order has admittedly been passed, it was contended that a fresh application for the declaration of the petitioner as a Goonda under section 13, besides being an exercise in futility, was not maintainable because once the Tribunal declared her a Goonda it could not add to it by declaring her to be a Goonda for the second time. It was also submitted that the prayer for action under section 14 was not entertainable as an order under section 14 could be made by the Tribunal only "while making-a declaration under section 13".
8. We have gone through the provisions of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, with the help of the learned counsel appearing for either side and find great force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. There is only one section in the Ordinance which deals with declaration of Goondas, and that is section 13. The power of the Tribunal is to declare a person as Goonda and to direct that his name be publicly notified in the prescribed manner, and be placed on the prescribed list of goondas if the Tribunal is satisfied, as a result of an enquiry held under this Ordinance, that the person complained against indulges in one of the acts mentioned in the section itself. The not result of the satisfaction of the Tribunal is that a person is " declared a Goonda ". Once such al, declaration is made and so long as it remains in farce, there could be no justification for the presentation of another application for his being declared a Goonda all over again. We have already seen that by virtue of section 25 of the Ordinance he remains to be a Goonda unless his name is ordered to be removed from the list of such persons on an application made to the Tribunal itself. In the present case, it is admitted that no such application had ever been made and, therefore, the petitioner does admittedly continue to be a Goonda. We have not been able to find any basis or jurisdiction for a second application for a declaration under section 13 during the subsistence of the first declaration.
9. So far as section 14 is concerned, the very opening lines of subsection (1) lay down that: " while making a declaration under section 13 the Tribu--nal may ac': in such one or more of the following ways as it may; The declaration under section 13 was made, in the presentcase, as far as back as 1963, and an order made by the Tribunal under section 14 at that time was upheld by the Commissioner. A further order under section 14 of the, Ordinance is not provided for. It is open to the Tribunal, while taking action under section 13, to pass an order under section 14 also whereafter it becomes functus officio for the purposes of section 14. It cannot, therefore, take any action under section 14 at any point of time after that.
10. The application before the Tribunal for action under sections 13 and 14 against the petitioner and the orders passed by the Tribunal on it, which are impugned before us, are therefore clearly against the law, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The order of the Commissioner stands on no higher footing. ,
11. The petition is, therefore, accepted and a declaration to that effect is made. The parties are, however, left to-- bear their own costs. The bail bonds furnished by the-- petitioner under orders of this Court shall automatically stand cancelled.