P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.

‑This order will dispese of the five writ petitions mentioned above as they are being disposed of on a common ground. These petitioners were ordered by the Chief Commissioner, Karachi to be externed from Karachi for a period of two years. The order in all the five cases is the same with the only difference in the name of the person against whom the order was passed. This order runs as follows :‑ "Whereas, I, A. T. Naqvi, Chief Commissioner, Karachi am satisfied in respect of . . . that he has acted and was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to the Community. "Whereas, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the main tenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order: `Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952 (XXXV of 1952), I hereby direct that the said . . . . . . shall not remain in any place of Karachi Administration for a period of two years after 24 hours of the service of this order". In the counter‑affidavit that was filed by the Circle Officer of the Special Police Establishment it is clear that all these people were indulging in activities of smuggling gold or helping to smuggle the same in this country and then smuggle out the same to India via Dacca. No other allegation has been made against the petitioners. Accepting all these allegations for granted for the sake of argument only, we have to see whether the order of externment can be supported on these facts. In the first paragraph the learned Chief Commissioner states that he was satisfied that the petitioner has acted and was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and supplies and services essential to the community, Having said this, in the operative part of his order the learned Chief Commissioner observes that "whereas, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the main tenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order". This clearly shoves that the learned Chief Commis sioner passed the externment order against the petitioners with a view to .prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order only and not the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. In the operative part of his order no reference whatsoever has been made to the activities of the petitioners being prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. A question, therefore, naturally arises whether such an order can be supported on the allegations made in the counter affidavits. The smuggling activities of the petitioner may be having an adverse effect on the general economy of the country and may therefore be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies, but it cannot be argued that their activities were prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order. There seems to be no connection between the smuggling activities and the maintenance of public order. In the case of Rex v. Basudera (A I R 1950 F C 67) it was held by their Lordships to the following effect "It is true that Black‑marketing in essential commodities may at times lead to a disturbance of public order but activities such as these are so remote in the chain of relation to the maintenance of public order that preventive detention on account of them cannot fall within the purview of entry 1 of List 11, Schedule VII of the Govern ment of India Act, 1935". With this observation or their Lordships we respectfully agree and we are clearly of opinion that the order of externment passed by the learned Chief Commissioner cannot be sustained on the allegations made in the counter affidavits. The proper order should have been to extern these people on the ground that their activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and not public order and public safety. We accordingly allow these petitions and direct a writ of mandamus to issue as prayed for. A. H. Mandamus issued.