2017 PLP 264 (YLRN)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

By means of instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has voiced against the order dated 21.01.2015, passed by respondent No.1; whereby name of the petitioner has been placed in 4th Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. Pursuant to order dated 06.07.2015, report and parawise comments were requisitioned from the respondents, which have been placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the Court submits that earlier name of the petitioner was included in the list maintained under the 4th Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, on 11.09.2004, however, the same was deleted on 02.05.2011. Further contends that without collecting any fresh material against the petitioner, with mala fide intention, his name was again enlisted in the 4th Schedule, which was assailed before this Court through filing Writ Petition No.29250/2012 and vide order dated 09.04.2014, the same was allowed. It is vehemently argued that neither the petitioner has any link with the defunct/proscribed organization nor his activities are prejudicial to the interest of the country. Even there is nothing on record that the petitioner is activist of proscribed organization or he is involved in terrorism or sectarianism or he participated in staging any meeting/procession for any defunct organization. Adds that without any cogent material/evidence against the petitioner, again vide order dated 21.01.2015 name of the petitioner has been included in the 4th Schedule, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel in the end seeks indulgence of the Court in the circumstances.

4. As against above, learned Law Officer vehemently opposes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that in view of ongoing law and order situation in the country and the activities of the petitioner being prejudicial to the safety of the public at large and security of Pakistan, on the recommendations of the District Intelligence Committee, his name was rightly incorporated in the 4th Schedule.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on file.

6. Perusal of record available on file reveals that first time name of the petitioner was included in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, on 11.09.2004, and subsequently the same was deleted on 02.05.2011. However, on the same day i.e. 02.05.2011, his name was again enlisted in the 4th Schedule, which was challenged before this Court through filing Writ Petition No.29250/2012 and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.04.2014 with direction to delete his name from the 4th Schedule. After more than nine months, on 21.01.2015, name of the petitioner has been included in the 4th Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1947. The intent of the legislature to introduce the provisions of section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to oversee the persons involved in anti-social and subversive activities endangering the public safety and security of the State. It would be expedient/advantageous to go through the relevant provisions of section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which are reproduced as under:- "11-EE Proscription of person. (1) The Federal Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, list a person as a proscribed person in the Fourth Schedule on an ex-parte basis, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such person is:-- (a) concerned in terrorism; (b) an activist, office bearer or an associate of an organization kept under observation under section 11D or proscribed under section 11B; and (c) in any way concerned or suspected to be concerned with such organization or affiliated with any group or organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism or acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, any person or organization proscribed under this Act" Perusal of the above provisions reveals that for incorporation of name of any person in the 4th Schedule, there should be concrete/cogent material and justifiable reasons to prima facie establish that he is an activist, office bearer or an associate of the proscribed organization or an organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the comments submitted by the respondents do not reveal that the petitioner falls within the ambit of provisions reproduced above. So much so, the District Officer, CTD, present in the Court when confronted, has failed to point out any involvement of the petitioner in any activity prejudicial to the provisions of section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, particularly after the order dated 09.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.29250/2012.

7. In the light of above legal and factual position, without any fresh material against the petitioner falling within the provisions of Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, incorporation of his name in the 4th Schedule is mala fide at the part of the respondents, which is untenable in the eyes of law.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is allowed, as a consequence whereof name of the petitioner is directed to be deleted from the list of 4th Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

9. The instant constitutional petition succeeds in the above terms. MH/Z-22/L Petition allowed.