1990 PLP 1309 (CLC)

This Constitution petition was filed seeking quashment of the orders of detention dated 25‑9‑1989 passed against (i) Asghar Ali alias Achar, (ii) Mohammad Anwar, (iii) Muhammad Latif alias Tifa, the three brothers, on the assertions that the grounds of detention were not communicated and that the detention orders were mala fide as the detenus were already in jail though two of them were granted bail and the bail plea of the third, namely, Asghar Ali alias Achar, was rejected on 24‑9‑1989 but the move for obtaining the detention orders was made on 21‑9‑1989, when it could not be visualized that the Court will grant bail to them. It is further asserted that the detention order as has been made effective from the date of service is illegal. In support of the last submission reliance is placed on Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sind (P L D 1973 Kar. 694), Humayun v. Deputy Martial Law Administrator (1978 P Cr. L J 847), Messrs Azad Papers Ltd. and another v. Province of Sindh (sic).

2. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General in reply submitted that Muhammad sLatif is involved in .l9 criminal cases, Muhammad Anwar is involved in 4 criminal cases while three cases stand registered against Asghar Ali alias Achar. These cases are sufficient to show that detenus are men of desperate character and are a constant danger to public grace and tranquillity. He has however, not been able to cite any precedent in order to refute the plea that the detention having been made effective from the date of service is illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Humayun v. Deputy Martial Law Administrator (supra) held that if a detention order is not to take effect immediately then the very purpose thereof will be defeated and that since the detention order was to take effect after about one and a half months it means the authorities concerned were not keen about the detention of the petitioner. Learned Judges of the Karachi Bench in the case of Muhammad Yonus (supra) :a page 717 adopting the view of another Division Bench observed: "that the law does not authorize that the period of detention should be computed from the date of the service of order of detention on the detenu, as the object of the law‑ of preventive detention is not that the detenu should suffer a quantity of time in detention, but the object is that the detention should be in effect for a period of time commencing at the beginning of a particular time and ending on a particular date." In the instant case also the direction passed is that the detenus be detained for a period of three months from the date of service of the order. The order of detention passed in this manner is not contemplated by section 3 (1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. 1960. The detention order, for this sole reason, is, therefore, held to have been passed without lawful authority and is hereby quashed. It may be clarified that this order will not entitle any of the detenus to be released from jail, if they are required to be detained in jail in any other case. This writ petition in the above terms succeeds and is accepted with costs. H.B.T./S‑688/L Petition accepted.