1992 PLP 88 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 5(2)‑‑‑Preventive detention ‑‑‑Detenu admittedly was already in jail in four criminal cases when the District Magistrate granting request of the S.P. ordered his detention under S.3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for period of three months‑‑‑In view of the admitted disability the detenu by no stretch of imagination could venture upon or offer or contribute towards threat to public safety or maintenance of public order, the sine qua non for pressing into service rigours of the preventive detention conceived by S.3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order, 1960‑‑‑District Magistrate had thus acted blind‑fold in a purely mechanical fashion without application of even semblance of independent judicial/judicious mind manifesting height of irresponsibility in the discharge of official functions and breach of Constitutional duty contemplated by Article 5(2) of the 1973 Constitution vis‑a vis the Constitutional guarantees of the citizens‑‑‑Consequence could have been avoided had the District Magistrate opted to avail of the Ophthalmic and Cerebellum faculties of human anatomy instead of restraining utilization thereof in a circumscribed bureaucratic insularity out of deliberations deriving the propelling impetus from the preventive detention legislation as an engine of oppression‑‑Fate of millions of souls inhabitation the districts where public servants with such patent disposition and propensities are made the incharge would be utterly unsafe‑‑‑Detention order was consequently set aside with special costs of Rs.5,000 against the District Magistrate personally. Ijaz Anwar for Petitioner. Zaemul Farooq Malik, AA.‑G. for Respondent. Through this Constitutional petition legality of petitioner's detention having been ordered by District Magistrate, Sialkot on 15‑9‑1991 under Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 has been assailed urging that petitioner being already lodged in District Jail, Sialkot in pending criminal proceedings had been naturally rendered incapacitated from activities alleged to be prejudicial to the public safety or maintenance of public order in every consumable sense of the word, secondly has even been denied copy of the order tending to detain him; during the course of motion hearing whereof on 8‑10‑1991 entrusting copy of the petition to Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, learned Additional Advocate‑General who was required to join the proceedings, record of the case was summoned for today which did not mature into reality, instead Mr. Zaeem‑ul‑Farooq Malik, learned AA.‑G. entered appearance and stating that he has been recently entrusted with the brief, requested for a short time with a view to seeking instructions from the authorities concerned telephonically, pursuant whereto, later in the day, he submitted that the District Magistrate is reported to be on tour, while Talib Hussain, Additional District Magistrate has confirmed that during confinement of the petitioner/detenu since 28‑8‑1991 in District Jail, Sialkot in four criminal cases, registered vide F.I.Rs. No.181 of 29‑6‑1991 under sections 452/34, P.P.C. Police Station Rangpura; No.46 of 20‑4‑1989 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 Police Station Kotli Said Amir; No.235/91 under section 411, P.P.C. read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 Police Station Kotwali and No.208 of 13‑8‑1991 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 Police Station Civil Lines, District Magistrate, Sialkot, granting request of the S.P. envisaged in memo of 9‑9‑1991 ordered petitioner's detention on 15‑9‑1991 under section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 for a period of three months. I am afraid, in view of the admitted disability, obviously the petitioner/detenu by no stretch of imagination could venture upon or offer or contribute towards threat of public safety or maintenance of public order, the sine qua non for pressing into service rigours of the preventive detention conceived by section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order, 1960; consequently, the conclusion is inescapable that the District Magistrate, Sialkot acted blind foldly in a purely mechanical fashion without application of even semblance of independent judicial/judicious mind manifesting height of irresponsibility in the discharge of official functions and breach of Constitutional duty contemplated by Article 5(2) of 1973 Constitution vis‑a‑vis the Constitutional guarantees of the citizens. The consequence could have been avoided had the District Magistrate opted to avail of the ophthalmic and cerebellum faculties of the human anatomy instead of restraining utilization thereof in a circumscribed bureaucratic insularity out of deliberations deriving the propelling impetus from the preventive detention legislation as an engine of oppression. I am impelled to observe that fate of millions of souls inhabitation the districts where public servants with such patent disposition and propensities are made the incharge would be utterly unsafe. In view of the afore going, the impugned detention order is set aside and the petition is allowed with special costs of Rs. 5,000 against the District Magistrate, Sialkot personally. N.H.Q./M‑53/L `Petition allowed.