' The learned District Magistrate, Rawalpindi on 21-3-1977 passed an order detaining Raja Muhammad Nacem son of Raja Muhammad Ashraf for a period of two months under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The actual order of detention reads as follows :- "ORDER ' Whereas I, A. Z. K. Sherdil, District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, am satisfied that Raja Muhammad Naeem son of Raja Muhammad Ashraf resident of Lalkurti is acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order ; ' And whereas with a view to preventing the said Raja Muhammad Naeem from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain him ' Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under the provisions of section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 read with Government of West Pakistan, Home Department Notification No, 3-104/Sp1.-1/64, dated 24-2-1977, I, A. Z. K. Sherdil, District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, hereby direst that the said Raja Muhammad Naeem shall be arrested forthwith and detained in the District Jail, Rawalpindi for a period of two months.
' Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 21st day of March 1977.
(Sd.)
District Magistrate, Rawalpindi."
' Raja Muhammad Ashraf, the father of the detenu, has come up in writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
2. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Khan, learned Assistant Advocate-General, has produced relevant record. It has been mentioned in the petition that the detenu was earlier a worker of the Pakistan People's Party (P. P. P.), Cantt., Rawalpindi, but on 19-2-1977 he joined the Pakistan National Alliance (P. N. A.).
It has been further mentioned that the detenu and his father had given one Hall to the P. P. P. For use of political activities therein but on joining the P. N. A. The said Hall was converted into the Election Hall of the said party i,e, P. N. A. In support of this the petitioner has Ned Annex. 'A' which is an abstract from the daily `Nava-i-Waqt' dated 20-2-1977. The said caption of news reads as follows :-{{URDU TEXT}} ' Later on the detenu was involved in a case as per F. I. R. No, 80 dated 10.3-1977 under section 82 of the Representation of the People Act LXXXVI of 1976 and he was granted bail in that case on 11-3- 1977. The detenu thereafter was involved in another case as per F. I. R. No, 130 dated 19-3-1977 under section 427/336/440 registered at Police Station, Cantt, Rawalpindi. The detenu was bailed out in this case on 24-3-1977. However, when the detenu was still in custody in connection with the latter case the learned District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, passed the order dated 21-2-1977 which has teen reproduced above. These facts have not been controverted. It is evident from these facts that the order of detenion was passed when the detenu was already in police custody under a judicial remand and his bail application vas still pending. The grounds of detention were net served on the detenu along with the order of detention but, however, they have been produced in Court and they read as follows :- "GROUNDS OF DETENTION ' You, Raja Muhammad Naeem son of Raja Muhammad Ashraf r/o Lalkurti, Rawalpindi have been detained under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 with a view to preventing you from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of Public Order.
2. You have been indulging in the activities prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order for some time past. You caused obstruction in the smooth flow of polling and damaged few shops disturbing the public peace and tranquillity. That in view of your past activities and further designs unless you are detained as aforesaid there is a real danger of your further acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order.
' The above grounds of detention are being communicated to you as required under Article 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and you are further informed that you are at liberty to make a representation to the Government against the order of detention.
(Sd.)
District Magistrate, Rawalpindi."
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the detenu that the grounds are vague as, for instance, the accusation that the detenu had been indulging in the activities prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance A of public order for "some time past" is indefinite in nature both with reference to the nature of activities and the period of time. Later on it is mentioned in the grounds that "you caused obstruction in the smooth flow of polling and damaged few shops disturbing the public peace and tranquillity". Learned counsel argues that so far as the obstruction in the polling is concerned, there are no details, for instance, as to which polling, when, where and how. And if at all they have any reference to the case as per F. I. R. No, 80 dated 10-3-1977 then the detenu had already been released on bail in that case on 11-3-1977 and the present order in that context will mean nothing but frustration of that order in an indirect manner and will thus be a colourable exercise of jurisdiction. Similarly the allegation that the detenu had damaged few shops is also indefinite and does not indicate as to which were those shops which were damaged by the detenu, how, when and where. He further submits that again if this has reference to F. I. R. No, 130 dated 19-3-1977 the detenu had been released on bail in that case as well on 24-3-1977. The matters which constituted subject-matter of definite offences, it was argued, could be attended to, for instance, by opposing the bail proceedings or following up his trial in a proper Court of law and a punitive detention (or to be more precise detention for an offence) could not have been converted into a preventive detention so as to frustrate the bail orders on the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case. There is no recovery memo. Of anything or material to show damaging of any shops. All these arguments have force and I agree with the same. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the order impugned actually tantamounts to converting punitive detention (or detention in connection with offences) into preventive detention during the period when the detenu was already under arrest in connection with aforesaid offences. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that he had no other accusation or material except the one pertaining to the aforesaid two F. I. Rs, The first F. I. R. Merely pertained to an allegation against the detenu that he was asking people not to participate in the Provincial Elections on 10-3-1977 but that by itself is neither here nor there because it is in common knowlege that none of the P. N. A.
(parties) took part in those elections and in that respect to pick up one man for a preventive detention especially when the event is over, was not justified. The background of the case cannot also be lost sight of. The detenu was a worker of the P. P. P. He and his father had given their Hall to the P. P. P. The detenu then handed it over to the P. N. A. The possibility of a grudge in that respect cannot he overruled. After having gone through the record placed before B me and for the reasons already given above, I am of the opinion that the order passed in this case was not supported by any proper or legal attending material and was, therefore, without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the detenu. Holding accordingly the petition is accepted and it is directed that the detenu should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.