1972 PLP 582 (SCMR)

SAIJAD AHMAD, J.‑This appeal arises out of a habeas corpus petition, which was filed by the respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, against his detention by the order of the Government of Pakistan (appellant herein) dated the 2nd of June 1969, under section 3(1)(b) of the Security of Pakistan Act of 1952, for a period of two years with effect from the date of the execution of that order. Earlier, on the 19th of February 1969, the respondent was detained by the then Government of West Pakistan' under sec tions 3(1) and 7 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for a period of 3 months, which was extended to a further period of 6 months, expiring on the 16th of Novem ber 1969. This order was, however, rescinded by the same Government on the 19th of June 1969. The High Court (Peshawar) accepted the habeas corpus peti tion, and declared the respondent's detention as illegal and with: out lawful authority, on the ground that under section 6‑A of the Security of Pakistan Act, the respondent could not be detained for a period exceeding three months, or where successive orders ate made on the same ground under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act, for the period exceeding three months in the aggregate, unless a board; to which a reference shall be made by the Central Government, has reported that there is in its ‑opinion sufficient cause for such detention. It was argued in the High Court on behalf of the appellant that section 7(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969, which was promulgated on the 4th of April 1969, had rendered ineffec tive any provision in any law providing for the reference of a detention order to an advisory board, and, therefore, the Central Government was no longer bound to limit the period of detention to three months only. The High Court has held that in spite of section 7(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969, sec tion 6‑A of the Security of Pakistan Act was intact, which required that the Central Government shall apply its mind to the case of a detenu after every three months to satisfy itself whether further detention is necessary on the same ground, and that if it is so satisfied, it was not necessary to refer the matter to the board. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has convassed before us that the interpretation placed by the High Court on section 7)1) of the Provisional Constitution Order and section 6‑A of the Security of Pakistan Act is not correct. It is stated at the Bar that after his release, pursuant to the High Court's order, the respondent has fled to Afghanistan and is no longer amenable to the jurisdiction of Pakistan authorities. This being the position, the appeal has become infructuous as far as the respondent is concerned. Since the law of preventive detention has also been changed by the Interim Constitution of 1972, re‑introducing the provision with regard to the reference of the detention case to the advisory board, it is useless in this case to do the academic exercise of interpreting section 6‑A of the Security of Pakistan Act in rela tion to section 7(1) of the :Provisional &Constitution Order, 1969. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. Appeal dismissed.