P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

S. A. MAHMOOD, J.‑These four petitions (Writ Petitions Nos. 314 of 1966, 315 of 1966, 316 of 1966, and 342 of 1966) challenging the detention of Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan, Sardar Muhammad Zafrullah, Mr. Ghulam Jilani Malik and Khawaja Muhammad Rafique will be disposed of by this order, as the facts of each case and the grounds of challenge to the order of detention are the same. 2. These detenus were arrested and detained under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, dated the 16th of February 1966, in exercise of power under rule 32 (1) (b) exercisable by the Central Government and conferred on him, and they were ordered by him to be detained in the District Jail, Lahore. On the same day, the Provincial Government in exercise of powers conferred on the Provincial Government under sub‑rule (4) of rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules read with Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Division, Notification No. S. R. O. III, dated 'the 6th of September 1965, directed that Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan be detained in Sukkur Jail, Sardar Zafarullah in Jacobabad Jail. Ghulam Jilani Malik in Bannu Jail and Khawaja Muhammad Rafique in Bahawalpur Jail. In neither case, the petitioner questions the order of detention, though stated to be illegal, oppressive and mala fide, except on the ground that the detention of the detenus outside Lahore and at the places specified above, is against law. It is prayed in consequence in these writ petitions under Article 98 (2) (a) (b) (i) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, that the Court may satisfy itself that each one of them is not being held in custody without lawful authority and in unlawful manner. 3. The detention of the detenus has been ordered under rule 32 (1) (b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules which provides as under: ‑ "32 (1).‑The Central Government, if satisfied with respect to any particular person, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security, the public safety or interest or the defence of Pakistan, the maintenance of public order, Pakistan's relations with any other powers, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in any part of Pakistan the maintenance of essential supplies and services or the efficient prosecution of war, it is necessary so to do, may make an order:‑ (a) . . . . . . . . . . (b) directing that he be detained." Under sub‑rule (4) a person who is ordered to be detained under this rule shall be detained in such place and under such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the Central Government may from time to time determine, 4. Subsection (4) of section 3 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance 1965, provides that: "The Central Government may by order direct that any power or duty, which by rules under subsection (1) is conferred or imposed upon the Central Government shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged‑ (a) by any officer or Authority subordinate to the Central Government, or (b) by any Provincial Government or by any officer or Authority subordinate to such Government, or (c) by any other authority." Its subsection (5) provides as under:‑ "A Provincial Government may by order direct that any power or duty which has been directed under subsection (4) to be exercised or discharged by the Provincial Government shall, in such circumstances and under such condition, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority, not being an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government." In exercise of power under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Ordinance, the Central Government directed by Notification No. S. R. O. III(R)/65, dated the 6th of September 1965, that the powers and duties of the Central Government specified in column I of the Schedule shall, in the circumstances and under conditions, if any, specified in column 2 of that Schedule, be exercised and discharged in the Province by the Provincial Government concerned. The exercise of powers under rule 32 is subject to the condition that it shall not be exercised by the Provincial Government in a manner inconsistent with any orders made in this behalf by the Central Government. 5. By Notification No. 9‑86‑H‑Spl‑1/65, dated the 20th of September 1965, published in the Extraordinary Gazette of West Pakistan of the 22nd of September 1965, the Provincial Govern ment in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (5) of section 3 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance read with the Government of Pakistan Notifications referred to above in supersession of two former notifications, directed that powers and duties delegated to the Provincial Government under the Defence of Pakistan Rules specified in column 1 of the Schedule to this Order, shall be exercised by the authorities or persons specified in column 2 of the Schedule within their respective jurisdictions in the circum stances and under the conditions, if any, specified in column 3 of the Schedule. The Schedule conferred the power in rule 32 to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioners on the condition that it shall not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any order made in this behalf by the Central Government or Provincial Governments and that power under its sub‑rule (4) is not to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioners. In the Gazette of West Pakistan (Extraordinary) of the 9th of February 1966, Notification No. 9‑86‑H‑Spl: 1/65 of the 7th of February 1966, of the Provincial Government, directed in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (5) of section 3 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965, read with Government of Pakistan Notification dated the 6th of September 1965, the addition of the following proviso in paragraph 3 in the entry noted against rule 32 in the third column:‑ "Provided that Deputy Commissioners may specify any place within their respective jurisdiction, where any person arrested by them to be detained, is to be detained." Thus, in the case of exercise of powers of detention under rule 32 (1) (b), the Deputy Commissioner in making his order cannot exercise the power under sub‑rule (4) and may specify such place of detention in respect of persons ‑against whom he makes an order of detention as is within his jurisdiction. 6. As the detenus are being detained in jails outside the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, who made the order of detention, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are neither being detained lawfully nor in a lawful manner. The order of detention is made under rule 32 (1) (b), whereas an order as to the place of detention is governed by sub‑rule (4) of rule 32. The power of making the order of detention has been conferred by the Central Government on the Provincial Government, which in turn has conferred the power on the Deputy Commissioners on the conditions specified above, but the Deputy Commissioner has not the power to make an order under sub‑rule (4) of rule 32, and in his order o: detention he may specify only such place of detention as is within his jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner has not contravened these provisions in making his order of detention. Having made the order of detention of the detenus, he has directed their confinement in the District Jail, Lahore, which was within his jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not invalid. His order is also not impugned on any ground, except that of confinement in jails outside his jurisdiction: That order is, however, made by the Provincial Government by reason of authority conferred on it by the Central Government by Notification No. S. R. O: III (R)/65, dated the 6th of September 1965. The argument that the delegated power of the Central Government having been exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, is not available for exercise by the Provincial Government under sub‑rule (4) of rule 32, cannot be availed of for the reason that this power is not conferred on the Deputy Commissioners. The exercise of power under sub‑rule (4) is conferred on the Provincial Government and that Government has in exercise of this power, directed the detention of the detenus in the various places in which they are being detained. This is also not a case of delegation of its power by the Provincial Government, but of conferment of its powers under section 3 (5) of the Ordinance on the Deputy Commissioner whose making an order of detention does not exhaust the power, which still remains in the‑ Provincial Government. Therefore, the order as to the places of detention is a valid order of the Provincial Government, and we find no substance in the contention that this power could not be exercised by the Provincial Government in a case in which the order of detention has been made by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. An objection was also raised during the arguments that the order of detention was mala fide, as it was apparent that the Government in its Press Note had exaggerated the case against the detenus and imputed certain acts, which the petitioners had not committed. We were referred to the Government's Press note published in the "Nawa‑i‑Waqt" and "The Pakistan Times" of the 18th of February 1966, but we cannot hold the detention to be invalid on this ground, even if it be true, firstly, because the validity of the order of detention has not been challenged by the petitioners, and, secondly, because what is relevant for our purposes is the order of the Deputy Commissioner and not the Press note. We would, however, expect from the Provincial Government that its Press note is carefully worded, as that it is strictly accurate in the recital of the necessary facts. 8. We were also told that applications for interview of Malik Ghulam Jilani by his wife, of Sardar Muhammad Zafrullah by Mr. Abdullah Butt and of all the detenus by Mr. Amjad Husain, Advocate were made to the Home Secretary, who has not afforded any opportunity so far to the applicants to interview the detenus. We have also been told that other persons also desire to interview the detenus. We were assured by the Advocate‑General, who appeared on behalf of the State, that such interviews would be permitted under rule 15 of the West Pakistan Public Order Detenu Rules, 1962, which have been made applicable by instructions of the Central Government contained in letter No. 24‑11‑65‑Poll (I), dated the 27th of September 1965, conveyed to the Deputy Commissioners in West Pakistan and others by the Government of West Pakistan by its letter No. S. O(DC) II 5/50‑65, dated the 30th of September 1965. It has been directed that these rules should be observed in all cases of persons detained under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. As an undertaking has been given that interviews will be allowed as permitted by the rules, and as. no request for interviews has been made in these petitions, we are not making any order as to the grant of interviews, which has been assured to us. 9. For the reasons given above, we find no force in these writ petitions, which are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs, as a substantial question of law was involved. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.