PL D 1988 Karachi 275 (PLP)

NAIMUDDIN, C.J.‑‑The District Magistrate (East), Karachi, by the order dated 9‑12‑1987, ordered the detention of Tahir lqbal alias Tahiri son of Feroze Khan on the following grounds:‑ (1) That you are worker of PPI and conspired with the other workers of PPI to stage a demonstration in order to disrupt the law and order situation. (2) That you spread the discontentment in the public to create panic and hatred amongst the people. (3) That you arranged the workers to attack the public and private buildings, property and destroy the public transport and human lives.

2. This order of detention has been called in question by the brother of the detune by this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The grounds of detention are dated 9‑12‑1987 and were served on the same day as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The only contention raised by Mr. Naraindas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that ‑the aforesaid grounds are vague and general in nature and no effective representation could be made by the detune against them. He further submitted that the detune has no connection with PPI and is a student having done his Graduation recently.

4. This petition was admitted on 21‑12‑1987 and by the order dated 24‑12‑1987, by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate‑ General was allowed time up to 31‑12‑1987 to file counter‑affidavit. No vaunted affidavit has beer filed even to date. We, therefore, proceed to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Taking up the first ground of detention that the 'detune was worker of PPI and conspired with the other workers of PPI to stage a demonstration in order to disrupt the law and order situation, ill may be stated that the petitioner has denied the allegation that his brother is tat worker of PPI. Nothing has been placed in support to that allegation _ Further, even if the allegation is true it does not by itself bring tuft, case within the purview of section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance or public Order ordinance (XXXI of 1960). The A 'allegation that the detune conspired, with other workers of PPI to stage a demonstration in order to disrupt the law and order situation, lacks material particulars as to when and where and with whom the conspiracy was hatched. It is also not even alleged that the alleged conspiracy was materialized and the law and order situation was at all disrupted and if at all disrupted when and where it was disrupted.

6. Taking up the devoid ground that the detune spread the discontentment in the public to create panic and hatred amongst the people, it is clear that the allegation is vague as it does not state as to how, when, where and by what means he spread the discontentment or how and in what manner and by what words of mouth or writing he created panic and hatred amongst the people.

7. Considering inelastic routing that the detune arranged in workers to attack the public and private buildings, property and destroy the public transport and human lives, again no particulars whatsoever are given, it is not stated who were the workers with whom the alleged arrangement was made and whether the arrangement was carried into effect and if it was carried into effect, what public and private buildings or property or transport were attacked or destroyed. The ground only expresses an apprehension.

8. It is not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate‑ General that these grounds are vague.

9. It has been consistently laid down by this Court and other superior Courage that an order of detention based on general and vague grounds cannot be sustained in law. We may however, here refer to some cases which have dealt with this question. Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sind P L D 1973 Pesh. 78; Muhammad Younus v.1 Province of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 694; Malik Sohrab Khan v , The District Magistrate, Rawalpindi and 2 others P L D 1974 Lah. 214; Muhammad Anwar Shaikh v. District Magistrate Rawalpindi P L D 1975 Lah. 414; Nek Amal v. Political Agent, Malakand and others PLD 1975 Pesh. 67; Muhammad Ajmal Khan v. The District Magistrate, Lyallpur and 4 others P L D 1977 Lah. 20 and Bahar Khan v. Inspector General, Frontier Corps at Quetta P L D 1987 Quetta

13. In the first‑named case of Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 78 a Division Bench of this Court at page 93 observed as follows:‑ "That the grounds of detention should not be vague and indefinite and should be comprehensive enough to enable the detune to make representation against his detention to the authority prescribed by law." In the case of Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 694, this Court reiterated the observations made in Liaquat Ali's case and further observed at page 711 as follows:‑ Not With standing the persuasive argument of Mr. Jamaluddin Ahmad, I would , still adhere to this view.' vagueness in the grounds may be evidence of the vagueness in the mind of the detaining authority and the failure on the part of the detaining authority to apply its mind properly and conscientiously to the available material to find out whether there is imminent and real necessity to order preventive detention of a citizen." In the Lahore case of Malik Sohrab Khan v. The District Magistrate, Rawalpindi and 2 others P L D 1974 Lahore 214 late Karam Elahee Chauhan, J., who was elevated to the Supreme Court, while construing the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance and laying down the test as to vagueness of allegations, observed as follows: ‑ "The true test luck: examining winter tile grounds furnished to detune held under preventive levy, are proper or not is to find out whether he could on those grounds make effective representation, apart from a bare denial of accusations conveyed to him." In the case of Nehalem (supra) the, order of detention merely mentioned that the detune had delivered an inflammatory speech without disclosing place and occasion, It was, therefore, held that the order was in conflict with Article 10(5) of the Constitution. We may reproduce here in below the relevant observations which read: "A look at these orders, one of which we have reproduced, would rather show that in there all that the detaining authority had done was to recall the previous speech of detunes delivered by them in August 1973 saying that it was inflammatory and tended to incite violence among the stand lords tenants of Malakand Agency. This being the nature of impugned orders, it .s obvious titian he had simply conveyed to detunes the conclusion, which he had reached against time, without informing them of the‑ necessary facts, such as the place where they had delivered the objection at speech and the language used by them on that occasion. In the absence of these facts can it be said that detunes could have made effective representation, against their detention. And we have no hesitation to answer the Question in negative. In this view, the impugned orders, having come in conflict with the requirement of clause (5) of Article 10 of the Constitution, must be held to have no validity whatever." In the case of Muhammad Ajmal Khan (supra) a Division Bench of the Lahore fight Court approved Thu it is for ascertaining whether the grounds are vague or not as enunciated in the case of Malik Sohrab Khan. In the last‑named case of Lianar Knan v L D 1987 Quetta

13. A division Bench of Baluchistan High Court headgear by Ajmal Mian, Acting Chief Justice, at page 21 of the report in this regard observed as follows,‑ ‑ "There cannot be any cavil to the proposition propounded in the above‑cited cases that in case, the grounds are vague, the detention order cannot be sustained."

10. We are, therefore, of the view That tile order of detention impugned in this constitution petition cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the detention of Tahir label alias Tahiri is declared to be without lawful authority. He shall be released if not required in any other case. M.B.A. /Z‑41/K Detenu released.