' A one of the petitioner has been detained under M. L. O. 9 and the period of detention is of six months with effect from 28-10-1977. The petitioner challenges the detention of his son and the Assistant Advocate-General was called upon to provide the material on the basis of which such an order of detention was passed: He has reported that there are five cases, one of the year 1973 and four others of 1974, all relating to the theft of electricity wires. It is stated that his reputation is of being a thief of electricity wires.
2. Going by the law of necessity and somewhat exceptional powers enjoyed by the Martial Law Authorities for the time being, it cannot be said that on this material preventive action could not be taken. The correctness of the material is not at the moment in issue for the pendency of the cases and on the charges alleged is not disputed. The technical objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order justifies detention for a period and the period cannot be repeatedly extended. Where a power is possessed to pass such an order and a period is specified in the order, that order can always be repeated for it cannot be urged that once exercised the' power comes to an end and is exhausted so far as that individual is concerned.
' I find that this is one of those cases which would not require interference in Constitutional jurisdiction and the petition is therefore dismissed in Amine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.