' Z A CHANNA , J.-This petition is directed against an order, dated 14-10-1976, passed by the Government of Sind, directing the detention of detenu Muhammad Yusuf son of Haji Moosa, for a period of three months under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.
2. In pursuance of the provisions of clause (5) of section 10 of the: Constitution and subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance, the detenu was supplied with grounds of detention on 25-10-1976, that is 11 days after the order of detention was passed against him and the detenu was actually placed under detention. Subsection (61 of section 3 of the Ordinance originally provided that the grounds of detention were to be supplied or furnished to the detenu, as soon as may be, but not later than 15 days from the rate of detention. However, the words "but not later than 15 days from the date of detention" were omitted by West Pakistan Ordinance No, XVIII of 1964. The position, therefore, is that the grounds of detention have to be furnished to the detenu "as soon as may be".
In the case reported in PLD 1973 tear. 694, it was held that undue delay in the communication of grounds of detention is infringement of the statutory requirement contained in subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance and renders the very detention invalid. Reference was made in that case to the unreported decision in the case of Liaquat Ali v The Government of Sind, where a similar view was taken and the delay of 15 days in communicating the grounds of detention was held to invalidate the detention itself. Reference may also be made to the case reporter) in PLD 1967 Pesh.
195, which was relied upon in the Karachi case. In the Peshawar case, it was held that the grounds of detention under subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance should ordinarily be served along with the order of detention under subsection (1) but in exceptional cases within 24 hours of the order.
3. In the instant case, as already pointed out, there has been an interval of 11 days between the detention of the detenu and the communication to him of the grounds of detention. No reasons have been shown for this abnormal delay, which we consider, in the circumstances of the case, to be contrary to the provisions of subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance. The learned Advocate-General concedes that the delay in the communication of the grounds, by reason of the authorities which we have just referred to, would render the order of detention invalid.
4. We accordingly hold that the order of detention passed in respect of the detenu, Mohammad Yusuf, is invalid and would quash the same. In the result, the petition is allowed but with no order as to costs and we direct that the detain be forthwith released, unless he is required in any other case.