P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

MASUD AHMAD, J.--‑As the main question requiring decision in Writ Petitions Nos. 1390 of 1957, 352, 459, 262, 324, 416, 318, 491, 267 and 392 of 1958 is the same, namely, whether an order can be passed under section 14 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, restricting the movements of a person to a place where he does not ordinarily reside, they will be disposed of by this judgment. The facts of these cases, briefly stated, are as follows :‑

1. Writ Petition No. 1390 of 1957. (Ashiq Husain alias Ashu a resident of Gujranwala Town v. The State etc.) This petitioner was declared to be a dangerous Goonda under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act of 1951, by an order dated the 21st of October 1952, passed by the District Tribunal, Gujranwala. Under section 14 of the Act his move ments were ordered to be restricted, for an unspecified period, to the jurisdiction of C. Division Police Post, Clock Tower, Gujranwala Town. On the 2nd of October 1957, the Tribunal passed a fresh order restricting the petitioner's movements for a period of two years to the limits of the Police Station Pindi Bhattian. He was directed to report his presence in the police station every Thursday, between 8 a.m. and 12 noon, and was asked to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,M0 for a period of two years to be of good behaviour, failing which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. Writ Petition No. 352 of 1958. (Sadiq Ali alias Sadiqa v. The District Tribunal, Lahore.) This petitioner is a resident of village Nurpur, within the jurisdiction of the Burki Police Station. He owns about half a square of land in that village and depends for his living on the income of this land. By an order dated the 22nd of June 1954, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda and under section 14 of the Act he was ordered to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000, with two sureties to maintain good behaviour for a period of two years. His move ments were also ordered to be restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the Bhai Pheru Police Station. He was ordered to report to the Station House Officer of that police station, on every Thursday and Saturday, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

3. Writ Petition No. 459 of 1958. (Hidayat alias Hidayat Ullah v. The District Tribunal, Lahore.) This petitioner is a resident of village Khand within the jurisdiction of the Kahna Police Station. By an order dated the 30th of May 1957, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda, and under section 14 of the Act his movements were restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the Bhai Pheru Police Station. He was ordered to report to the officer in charge of that police station on every Tuesday and Saturday, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

4. Writ Petition‑No. 491 of 1958. (Sandal v. The District Tribunal, Lahore.) This petitioner is, a resident of village Jahman, Police Station Burki. By an order dated the 29th of June 1954, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda, and under section 14 of the Act he was directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 and to maintain good behaviour for a period of two years. By the same order, passed under section 14 of the Act, his movements were ordered to be restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the Bhai Pheru Police Station. He was also ordered to report himself to the Station House Officer of that police station on every Tuesday and Saturday, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

5. Writ Petition No. 262 of 1958. (Muhammad Husain alias Husaina v. Province of West Pakistan etc.) This petitioner is resident of village Sarhali Kalan, Police Station Laliani, where he has been allotted two squares of agricul tural land. By an order dated the 5th of December 1952, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda. By the same order passed under section 14 of the Act his movements were restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the Sarai Mughal Police Station.

6. Writ Petition No. 324 of 1958. (Muhammad Aslam v. The Province of West Pakistan etc.) This petitioner is a resident of Nicholson Road, Lahore, within the jurisdiction of the Qila Gujjar Singh Police Station. By an order dated the 27th November 1952, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda. By the same order, passed under section 14 of the Act, his move ments were restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the Old Anarkali Police Station and he was also ordered to report to the Station House Officer, Old Anarkali Police Station, on every Monday and Friday, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

7. Writ Petition No. 416 of 1958. (Abdul Aziz v. The Province of West Pakistan). This petitioner is a resident of Kucha Kundigran, Moti Bazar, Police Station Kotwali, Lahore. By an order dated the 13th of April 1958, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda and under section 14 of the Act he has been asked to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000, with one surety in the like amount, to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, or in default to undergo rigorous imprison ment for the same period. By the same order, passed under section 14 of the Act, his movements have been restricted within the jurisdiction of the Mozang Police Station. He has also been asked to report himself to the Station House Officer of that police station, on every Tuesday and Saturday, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

8. Writ Petition No. 318 of 1958. (Sardar Masih alias Darl v. The Province of West Pakistan). This petitioner is a resident of Jallo, Police Station Manawan, where%be owns a residential house and cultivates some land. By an order dated the 2nd April 1958, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he has been declared to be a dangerous Goonda. Under section 14 of the Act he has been asked to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000, with one surety in the like amount, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the same period and his movements have been restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of Sarai Mughal Police Station.

9. Writ Petition No. 267 of 1958. (Abdul Hamid v. The Province of West Pakistan etc.) This petitioner originally lived in village Padhana (Chak No. 45), Tahsil Chunian, but after the death of his father in the year 1957 he started living in village Thatta Dhilwan, Police Station Manawan. By an order dated the 16th of December 1954, passed by the District Tribunal, Lahore, under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, he was declared to be a dangerous Goonda. By the same order, passed under section 14 of the Act, he has been asked to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, or in default to undergo rigorous imprison ment for the same period. Under the same provisions of law, his movements have been ordered to be restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of Sarai Mughal Police Station.

10. Writ Petition No. 392 of 1958. (Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The Province of West Pakistan). The petitioners are residents of Chowk Shah Abu‑ul‑Mauli, Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore: By an order dated the 2nd of April 1958, passed under section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, they have been declared to be dangerous Goondas. By the same order, passed under section 14 of the Act, they have been asked to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000, with one surety. in the like amount, to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the same period. Their movements have been ordered to be restricted to the areas of the following police stations noted against the name of each of them :‑ (1) Abdul Majid ... Police Station Civil Lines Qila Gujjar Singh, Naulakha and Lahore Cantonment. (2) Abdur Rashid ... Police Station Kasur City. (3) Muhammad Sadiq ... Police Station Kasur City. (4) Muhammad Aslam ... Police Station Mozang. (5) Muhammad Latif ... Police Station Pattoki. (6) Ata Muhammad alias Labha ... Police Station Pattoki. They have also been asked to report themselves to the officers in charge of the various police stations on certain specified days of the week.

11. The validity of the various orders passed by the District Tribunals in these cases is challenged on the main ground that section 14 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act of 1951, under which these orders were passed, does not empower a District Tribunal to restrict the movements of a person in an area where he does not reside and that such orders amount to orders of externment or removal, which are not envisaged by this provision of law. The validity of those orders where the persons proceeded against have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment in default of furnishing bonds is challenged on the ground that section 14 of the Act under which these orders purport to have been passed, does not empower the Tribunal to impose any such punishment. In the case of Ashiq Husain alias Ashu (Writ Petition No. 1390 of 1957) the validity of the Tribunal's orders is further challenged on the ground that in the presence of the previous order passed in the year 1952, no order could be passed by the District Tribunal.

12. The validity of these orders was also challenged on the ground that they came into conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 11 of the late Constitution. This matter was, however, not pressed at the time of arguments and, therefore, we are not called upon to decide whether the orders in question can be held to be void, because of their conflict with the guarantees contained in these two Articles of the late Con stitution.

13. Under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act if a person complained against is found to have committed certain acts specified therein he can be declared to be a dangerous Goonda and under section 14 of the Act, while making such a declaration, the Tribunal may require such a person to furnish a bond to be of good behaviour and to direct that he shall not visit any house or quarter inhabited by prostitutes or any drinking or gambling den etc. Subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act, under which the various orders purport to have been passed and which gives further powers to the Tribunal, is worded as follows :‑ "(2) In the case of a person who is declared a dangerous Goonda, (a) it may direct that his movements shall be restricted to any area specified in the order, or may direct him to report himself at such times and places and in such mode as may be specified in the order, or it may make both the directions ; (b) it may direct that he shall not visit or go within surround ings, specified in the order, or, any of the under‑mentioned places, without the written permission of the Police Officer in charge of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction such place is situated, namely ‑ ‑ " The places specified under clause (b) are schools, colleges, theatres, public halls etc.

14. The first point requiring decision is whether while passing an order under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act asking a person to furnish a bond to be of good behaviour, the Tribunal can also direct that in case of default the person complained against shall undergo imprisonment for the period specified In the order. If default is mane in furnishing sureties, the Tribunal is empowered by section 16 to direct that the person from whom such sureties were demanded shall be detained in prison until the sureties are furnished, or the period for which the security is demanded, expires,' but neither section 14, nor section 16, nor any other provision of the Act empowers the Tribunal to pass an order that the person complained of shall undergo imprisonment for a certain specified period, if he fails to furnish the bond, or the sureties. The various orders, referred to above, which contain a direction that if the bonds asked for are not furnished, the persons complained against shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for certain specified periods, are, therefore, void to that extent and cannot, in our opinion, be enforced.

15. In all these cases the movements of the petitioners have been ordered to be restricted to certain specified areas where they did not originally reside. The question is whether subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act, under which these orders purport to have been passed, gives any power to the Tribunal to restrict the movements of a person to an area which does not include his place of residence. This Court has held in several cases, as for instance, in Muhammad Nazir v. The Province of West Pakistan (Writ Petition No. 28 of 1958) and Muhammad Nazir alias Jira v. The District Tribunal (Writ Petition No. 1510 of 1957) that neither clause (a) nor clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to pass an order directing the removal, or externment, of a person from any place or specified locality. This Court has also held in Riasat Ali alias Roshi v. The Province of West Pakistan (P L D 1957 Lah. 1052) that the area to which the movements of such a person can be restricted must include the locality where his own house is situate and that this provision of Law was not intended to be used for preventing a person from visiting his own house. No authority was shown to us by the learned counsel for the State in which a different view was taken. In our opinion an order restricting the movements of a person to an area where his own house is not situate is virtually an order of externment and such an order does not come within the purview of either clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act. The Tribunal's orders, referred to above, are, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

16. It was contended on behalf of the State that as by section 17 of the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, the rules made by the Provincial Government under section 16 of the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918, have been made applicable to such cases and, as under certain circumstances, by virtue of rule 2 of the said rules the movements of a person, other than the owner of land or an occupancy tenant, can be restricted to any other town or village where he does not reside, these orders were in accordance with law and, therefore, their validity cannot be challenged on the ground that the movements of the petitioners have been restricted to certain areas where they did not reside before. " This contention would have been unassail able, if we had come to the conclusion that under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act an order of externment or removal could be passed ; but as our view is that such an order is not contemp lated by this provision of law, rule 2 of the rules framed under the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act, 1918, could not be availed by the District Tribunals for passing the orders; in question.

17. With regard to the case of Ashiq Husain alias Ashu (Writ Petition No. 1390 of 1957) the order of the District Tribunal is liable to be quashed on the further ground that the Punjab Control of Goondas Act, 1951, does not contain any provision for review of the orders passed and in the presence of the previous order passed by the same Tribunal in the year 1952, a fresh order of a different kind, even on fresh evidence, could not, in out opinion, be passed against him.

18. For reasons given above, we issue a writ of certiorari to the respondents in all these cases quashing the various orders to the extent to which they direct that the petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment in default of furnishing bonds, or sureties, and to the extent to which they direct that the petitioners' movements be restricted to certain specified areas where they did not reside before these orders were passed. We also issue a writ of mandamus, in each case, to the respondents directing that to the extent noted above these orders may not be enforced. The petitioners are also awarded costs against the respondents. A. H. Orders quashed.