1. ' The petitioner has called in question the detention of her son Abdul Salam in Central Prison, Karachi w.e.f, 1-7-2000. According to the petitioner the detenu had some enmity with the staff of Police Station Kalakot/Chakiwara and was falsely involved in a number of cases. In the memo. Of petition several cases have been mentioned wherein either the detenu was acquitted or had been enlarged on bail. It was further contended that on 1-7-2000 the detenu was granted bail in certain cases wherein he had been involved as an accused but when he was coming out of the Jail gate the respondent No,3 arrested him and took him away eversince he is detained in unlawful custody.
2. ' Parawise comments were filed on behalf of the respondent and the list of eight cases in which the detenu had been acquitted or granted bail was cancelled. It was, however, stated that after being released the detenu in view of his previous illegal and notorious criminal activities was detained under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. No copy of the detention order, however, was either placed on the record or delivered to the counsel for the petitioner.
3. ' When the case cameup for hearing today Mr. Ainuddin Khan learned Additional Advocate- General stated that a copy of the detention order could not be placed on record inadvertently though it was received in his office. We found this explanation plausible and allow the same to be placed on record. Nevertheless Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin argued that such copy has not even been made available to her and was never served upon the detenu himself throughout the entire period of detention in flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and Article 10 of the Constitution. The learned A.A.-G. Was not able to satisfy us or place anything on record to indicate that the order was ever served. Moreover, he candidly acknowledged that the detention order ceased to have effect on 2-8-2000 but not disputed the fact that the detenu continued to remain in Jail today. We were shocked with casual attitude adopted by public officials relating to liberty of citizens.
4. ' We also asked learned Additional Advocate-General to inform us whether the detenu was being detained as an undertrial prisoner in respect of any offence allegedly committed by him but he stated that he had no such information and apparently only reason for keeping him in custody was a detention order which was never served and has already expired. Without going into other questions it is well-settled that when grounds of detention are not furnished to the detenu "as soon as may be" in terms of section 3 of the M.P.O., 1960 the detention order is liable to be struck down on this ground alone.
5. 'Even otherwise the only ground stated in the detention order purportedly passed on 3-7-2000 seems to be that "the accused named above is notorious criminal having been involved in many criminal cases. As such his being at large is a live threat to public peace and tranquillity of the District". We are constrained to observe that this could hardly be treated as a valid ground for ordering preventing detention. Moreover, the continued detention of the detenu even after the expiry of the detention order without even semblance of legal authority amounts to gross abuse of power affecting liberty of citizens.
6. ' We would accordingly direct that the detenu be released forthwith and at the same time the respondent No,1 will compensate him for unlawful detention of the detenu at the rate of Rs,5,000 per day for a period of 36 days i.e, w.e.f, 3-7-2000 to 8-8-2000. The respondent Government, however, will be free to recover this amount from the salary of any official who may be responsible for such gross violation of law. This will be without prejudice to any disciplinary action that may be taken under the laws. The amount of compensation of Rs,180,000 be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within one month from today.
7. Petition accepted/