1993 PLP 2245 (MLD)

Abdul Hamid Khan v. The District Magistrate, Larkana and 2 others PLD 1973 Kar.344; Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1984.Lah. 222; Said Ahmad v. The Province of Sindh etc. 1991 MLD 8 and Ahmad Fahim Mughal v. Muhammad Saleem Khan, District Magistrate and DC (South), Karachi and 2 others PLD 1990 Kar. 474 ref. Riaz Kiani for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondent. The petitioner; resident of Katchi Abadi, Gulberg III, Lahore, was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Lahore, for a period of three months under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) he is a notorious member of Qabza Group which encroaches upon State land and he. has already unauthorisedly taken possession of about 15 Kanals of State land and built a housing colony on it and he causes harassment to the residents of the local colony by switching off electricity and water supply so as to charge Jagga Tax. This order has been assailed through this Constitutional petition and it is contended that the petitioner is a law‑abiding citizen and there is no justification available for his detention. Report and parawise comments were called from the learned District Magistrate, who has tried to justify the detention order in the comments, on merits. Besides, a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition was also raised and it was contended that since an alternate remedy in the form of representation to the Government is available, the writ petition was in competent as the said remedy has not been availed of.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that filing of a representation before the Government against the detention order is not an adequate and efficacious remedy. He relied on Abdul Hamid Khan v. The District Magistrate, Larkana and 2 others PLD 1973 Kar.344 at p.360 and Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani v. Government of the Punjab PLD 1984 Lah.222 at

228. The mere pendency of criminal cases, according to the learned counsel is no ground, per se, for passing a valid detention order. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted in three criminal cases and he is on bail in two cases while in the sixth case, as mentioned in Annexure `B' with the report, he is not arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel has rued upon Said Ahmad v. The Province of Sindh etc. 1991 MLD 8, which authority has also been reported in 1991 MLD 8.

3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has stoutly opposed this petition and claimed that the petitioner being member of a Qabza Group has created terror for the residents of the locality and he is engaged in anti‑social activities and, therefore, the learned District Magistrate was justified to order his detention.

4. The question as to whether the petitioner has been justifiably detained, has to be determined with reference to the grounds of detention supplied to him at the time of his detention. The allegation that he is a member of Qabza Group is too vague to be made the basis for his detention. The mere pendency of criminal cases hardly provides justification for curtailing his liberty. See Said Ahmad's case (supra). The allegation of harassment to the residents of the housing colony is also vague and couched in generalized terms. Such a ground cannot be treated to be good enough for his detention. See Ahmad Fahim Mughal v. Muhammad Saleem Khan, District Magistrate and DC (South), Karachi and 2 others PLD 1990 Kar. 474.

5. The upshot bf the above discussion is that the order of the detention passed against the petitioner, impugned in this writ petition, cannot be sustained and the same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the consequential result that the petitioner is entitled to be released from detention forthwith. A direction is issued for his release from detention with immediate effect. N.H.Q./A‑456/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Writ petition allowed.