2005 PLP 1771 (MLD)

Through this single order I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions No.3580 of 2004, 3581 of 2004, 3582 of 2004 and 3583 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases.

2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four petitioners were arrested by the local police in case F.I.R. No.204 of 2004 dated 22-6-2004 under section 16 MPO 1960 read with section 341, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. They applied for their bail after arrest which was granted by the learned Illaqa/Special Magistrate vide order dated 29-6-2004. It is alleged that when the `Robkars' were sent to Jail for their release it was informed that the present impugned detention orders have been passed by respondent No.1 on 26-5-2004, therefore, they cannot be released. Hence these petitions.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned detention orders are cyclostyle orders, in all respects they are verbatim identical. No instance have been quoted in the said orders so as to show the objective satisfaction of the Authority passing the, orders, that the petitioners are involved in some activities prejudicial to the State or public tranquillity. It is next argued that under Article 4 of the Constitution the petitioners are entitled to be dealt with in accordance with law, therefore, it is contended that since the orders lack grounds on which the impugned order was passed, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.

4. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. while referring to an unreported judgment of this Court passed by a Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 14839 of 1994 dated 24-1-1995 contends that these petitions are not maintainable as an alternate remedy by way of filing representation before the Government under section 3(6) of the MPO 1960 is available to the petitioners. He has also placed on record four separate sets in each case to indicate the grounds on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed.

5. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Karachi High Court reported as (1999 PCr.LJ 747), wherein the unreported Full Bench judgment of this Court was also considered, that representation is not an adequate remedy within the meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution.

6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before embarking upon the other merits of the case it is appropriate that the maintainability of these petitions on the touchstone of Full Bench judgment passed by this Court cited by the A.A.-G. may be examined. In the referred judgment the impugned detention orders were passed by the District Magistrate Rawalpindi, therefore, it was held by the Hon'ble Full Bench that a representation before the Government under section 3(6) of the MPO 1960 is available, therefore, the petition was dismissed on this short ground. The distinctive feature in the instant case from the referred case is that the impugned detention orders are passed by respondent No.1/Home Secretary, Government of Punjab and representation before the same Authority does not appear to qualify the test of adequacy as required by Article 199 of the Constitution, which A was not the case in the referred judgment. Therefore, to my humble view a representation provided under section 3(6) of MPO 1960 is not an adequate remedy at least in the instant case.

8. Coming to the merits of the case, it is to be noted that all the four impugned orders passed in the cases of the petitioners are absolutely verbatim identical. No ground whatsoever for the present detention is mentioned in the said orders. The orders simply state the style of the personality of the detenus which is also identical in all the four cases which is simply not possible. All the four petitioners were involved in the criminal case referred above in which they already been enlarged on bail. Their involvement in the said case is the sole basis of grounds supplied by the learned A.A.-G. The same is also corm-non in all the four cases as all of them are involved in the same case. Their guilt or otherwise in the said case shall be determined by the trial Court at the relevant time. In this view of the matter their detention under the impugned orders does not appear to be in consonance with law.

9. For what has been stated above all these petitions are allowed C and the impugned detention orders are held to be illegal and without lawful authority. Copy `dasti'. N.H.Q./5-393/L Petition accepted.