' Shabbir Hussain petitioner has brought this Constitutional petition challenging an order, dated the 22nd of January, 1998 passed by the District Magistrate of Sargodha District, under section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance of 1960, detaining the petitioner's son Urfan Shabbir in the District Jail, Sargodha for a period of 3 months w,e,f, the 21st of March, 1998 on the ground that the said Urfan Shabbir was acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order within the Revenue Limits of Sargodha District.
2. The legality of the order of detention is assailed primarily on the ground of mala fide. It is submitted that the detenu who was an accused person in a case registered vide first information report No,406 of 1996, dated the 5th of August, 1996, under section 302/324/109/34, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 at Police Station Satellite Town of District Sargodha was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment/order, dated the 22nd of January, 1998.
3. Learned Advocate General has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Constitutional petition and submits that an alternate and adequate remedy within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973 is available to the petitioner and the detenu by way of section 3 subsection (6) of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance of 1960 which provides inter alia that:-- "Section 3. Power to arrest and detain suspected persons.-- ' Subsection (1) Subsection (6) where a detention order has been made under this section the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be (***) communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made, inform him that he is at liberty to make a representation to Government against the order and afford him the earliest opportunity of doing so: ' Provided that the authority making any such orders may refuse to disclose facts which such authority considers it to be against public interest to disclose.
' Subsection (6-A) further provides that:--- ' Where a representation is made to Government under subsection (6), Government may, on consideration of the representation and giving the person detained an opportunity of being heard, modify, confirm or rescind the order."
4. Learned Advocate General submits that this Constitutional petition merits dismissal because the petitioner has not availed a statutory remedy available to him and in this context places reliance upon the following cases:- . (i) Syeda Shamim Akhtar v. The Government of Pakistan and 3 others 1996 PCr.LJ 326; (ii)
Muhammad Siddiq Khan v. District Magistrate PLD 1992 Lahore 140 and (iii) Mrs. Farzana Kamran v.
District Magistrate, Gujrat and 2 others 1992 PCr.LJ 2336.
In the last mentioned case this Court has held that detention as a precautionary measure can be directed against a person even if the grounds against him are essentially in the nature of a criminal charge and that where the grounds of detention were neither vague nor malicious but were specific and had not been denied on factual plane and the same could validly offer a legal basis for detention of the petitioner who had not even made any representation against his detention as provided by law.
5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
' This judgment/order will also dispose of writ petition No, 1826 of 1998 entitled Hafiz Ijaz Nabi v.
Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and others and writ petition No, 1827 of 1998 entitled Muhammad Ashraf v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and others.