P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.

‑The present application for a writ of habeas corpus was made under section 491 Criminal P. C. on 26th March 1956, and arose under the following circumstances :‑ An order on 8th June 1955 was passed by the District Magistrate, Quetta‑Pishin, which purported to have been made under section 3 (1) of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation 1997, (Regulation I of 1947) whereby the present applicant, Muhammad Hashim, was detained for a period of one month from the date of that order. Another order was passed by the Agent to the Governor‑General and Chief Commissioner in Baluchistan on 15th June 1955, whereby the applicant was detained for a period of six months from the date of that order. A third order was passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan on 15th November 1955, whereby the applicant was detained for a further period of six months. The last order, as we have been informed today by the learned advocate for the applicant, and which has been admitted by the learned Additional Advocate‑General on behalf of the State, was passed on 8th May 1956. According to this order, the applicant was detained for a further period of six months from 7th June 1956. We have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the State, and we have come to the conclusion that this petition must be allowed. The main grounds on which we are disposed to allow this petition are :‑ (i) that the order under which the petitioner is under detention is not a legal order, as it is in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution Act ; and (ii) that the grounds have not been supplied within a reasonable time as contemplated by law. So far as the first ground is concerned, it has not been denied that section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regula tion, 1947 did not contain any provision for supplying the grounds of detention to the detenu, or making a reference to Advisory Board. Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reads as under :‑ Any existing law or any custom or, usage having the force of law in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. Reading this Article along with Article 7 of the Constitution, it is clear, in the first place, that section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation, 1947, was void inasmuch as it did A not provide for the supply of grounds of detention to the detenu within a reasonable time and also did not make any provision for making a reference to an appropriate Advisory Board within‑V three months of the detention of the detenu. Section 3 was amended by Ordinance VI off 1956, which was published on 23rd March 1956, in order to bring it in conformity with Article 7 of the Constitution, and by this amendment provision was made for supplying grounds of detention to the detenu and also for making a reference to , an Advisory Board. Considering the provisions of Articles 4 and 7 of the Constitution Act, the order which was made on the 15th November 1955 detaining the detenu was not a legal order. It was therefore incumbent upon the authority concerned to have passed a valid order in accordance with the amended section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation, 1947, which came into force from 23rd March 1956. An order has, however, been passed on 8th May 1956, under subsection (i) and (v) of section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation, 1947, as amended by Ordinance VI of 1956, which is to take effect from 7th June 1956. This order, no doubt, has been passed after section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation, 1947 had been amended and brought into line with Article 7 of the Constitu tion Act, but the difficulty is twofold: it appears in the first place to be an extension of an illegal order and in the second place is to take effect from 7th June 1956. On the grounds that we have discussed above, it is clear that the order in question, namely the order of 15th November 1955, under which the detenu is under detention, is not a legal order. The other ground on which this petition can be allowed is that the grounds of detention. as required by sub section (5‑A) (1) of section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation, 1947, should have been served as "as soon as may be" on the detenu. In the present case, even if we were to take that the order of 15th November 1955, was a valid order, the grounds had been supplied to the detenu admittedly after the 16th May 1956, long after the amendment of section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation 1947, which came into effect on 23rd March 1956. We may mention here that this case had come before us on 14th May 1956, when at the request of the learned Additional Advocate- General, we adjourned it to another date. The grounds of detention, as we have already mentioned above, are dated 16th May 1956, and would appear to have been supplied during the period of adjournment. We consider the delay of about two months to be unreasonable under the circumstances of the present case. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State also does not disclose any ground whatsoever why there has been such an inordinate delay in communicating the grounds to the detenu. We may observe that the provisions of the Preventive Detention Acts or Ordinances are in the nature penal, and B therefore must be strictly construed. In the present case, as we have already mentioned above, we find that the order of detention of 15th November 1955, is an invalid order, as it does not purport to have been passed under a valid Act. In the second place, in the absence of any reason whatsoever why the grounds of detention have been supplied to the detenu in about two months time and that too after an adjournment was taken by the learned Additional Advocate‑General for the State, the delay is unreasonable. In support of the contention that a delay of about two months was un reasonable, reliance has been placed on the case of Murat Patwa v. Province of Bihar (A I R 1948 Pat. 135) and the case of Muzaffaruddin alias Muhammad Shat son of Malik Waris v. The Crown (I L R 1948 Kar. 77). It is no doubt true that the question whether the grounds were communicated "as soon as may be" is a question of fact which has to be determined according to they, facts and the circumstances of each case. In the present case. I however, we have already observed that no grounds or reasons have been given by the State why there was such along delay. On the face of it, it appears to us that a delay of about two months would be an unreasonable delay, and it cannot be said that the grounds were communicated to the detenu "as soon as may be" within the meaning of section 3,i subsection (5‑A) (i) of the Baluchistan Public Safety: Regulation, 1947. We would, for the reasons given above, allow the petition and order that the applicant be set free forthwith. K. B. A./A. H. Petition allowed.