P L D 2024 Peshawar 112 (PLP)

SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.

On 31.05.2023, these petitions were disposed of by means of the following short order:-- For reasons to be recorded later, the instant Writ Petition as well as the connected Writ Petitions, the detailed list has been provided in Annexure 'A' to this Short Order, are disposed of in the following manner:-- i. The impugned orders of the detention of the petitioners under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 ("Ordinance") read with Notification No.3-104/ HSPL-1-64 dated 27.02.1965 and Notification No. SO (JUDL) HD/3-92/2008 dated 02.09.2009 are not maintainable for absurdity, vagueness, lack of reasons/sufficient material while passing the impugned orders by the Deputy Commissioner, which are accordingly set aside and the petitioners be released forthwith on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One Lac each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner with an undertaking they shall not involve in any anti-state activities and shall not act prejudicially to the public safety in any manner (if such bail bond has not already been furnished in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.05.2023), if not required in any other case. ii. The respondents/District Administration/Provincial Government would be at liberty to initiate proceedings and pass an appropriate order under the Ordinance against the petitioners when it is satisfied that there are sufficient material against any of the petitioner relating to their any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order and their arrest/ detention are necessary for maintaining the public safety and public order. iii. Those petitioners, whose detention orders passed under Section 3 of the Ordinance, were suspended by this Court subject to furnishing bail bonds along with an undertaking, referred above, and pursuant to the said order, the required bail bonds have been furnished along with the above referred undertaking, their such release on the same terms, as stated above, are hereby confirmed subject to para-ii above. iv. Those petitioners, whose detention orders have been suspended by this Court and so far neither they are arrested nor required in any other case, shall submit bail bonds in sum of Rs. One Lac each with two sureties each in the like amount along with an undertaking referred above to the satisfaction of Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner within five (05) days from the date of judgment of this Court. v. The bail bond/surety bond furnished and executed as stated above would be valid for a period of six (06) months from the date of the bond. The reasons for the short order are given below:

2. The petitioners have challenged their detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 ("MPO"). It was on 09.05.2023 that the former Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi was arrested by the Law Enforcing Agencies within the premises of Islamabad High Court. The said arrest was protested by the members of the Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf throughout the country, and, as evident from the reports in print as well as electronic media, a good number of such protestors created serious law and order situation throughout the country by attacking public places and burning public property and private vehicles, military installations, and making hate speeches etc. However, upon the release of the former Prime Minister by the Apex Court on 11th May, 2023, the situation returned to normalcy.

3. On 10.05.2023, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs Department, through a letter addressed to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Interior, Islamabad intimated them of the prevailing law and order circumstances, and for safety of life and property of citizens as well as security of government installations, placed a request for acquisition of Armed Forces in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"). On the same date, the Federal Government while honouring such request and by exercising powers conferred under Article 245 of the Constitution and Section 4(3)(ii) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, authorized deployment of Pakistan Army troops (assets troops) in aid of civil power for safety of life and property of citizens as well as security of government installations in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. Letter dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs Department is evident to show that Rules of Engagement for Pakistan Army were issued in consultation with the Headquarter 11-Corps, Peshawar, specifying the exact contour of deployment of Pakistan Army in respective formation area of responsibility.

4. In the aftermath of 9th May 2023, a good number of citizens, who purportedly remained violent and attacked the government installations, burnt public place, and vehicles, and endangered the lives of people were booked in criminal cases. From amongst them, the present Petitioners before this Court were put under preventive detention under Section 3 MPO. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2023, Mr. Aamir Javed, the worthy Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these petitions in terms of Article 245(3) of the Constitution and has also argued that notices were required to be given to the Advocate General and Attorney General since interpretation of various provisions of the Constitution is involved in this matter, consequently, notices were issued to the Advocate General and Attorney General for Pakistan under Order XXVII-A, C.P.C. to assist this Court on the following legal issue. "Whether the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution can be pressed into service where the Armed Forces have been called in aid of civil power for safety of life and property of citizen as well as security of government installations, by issuing notification under the provision of Article 245(3) of the Constitution?

5. Today, while opening his arguments, the worthy Advocate General has reiterated the aforesaid preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of these petitions. He has maintained that neither the action of the Federal Government under Article 245 of the Constitution has been challenged in these petitions nor as evident from the express language of clause (3) of Article 245 of the Constitution, this Court has any jurisdiction in the matter. The worthy Advocate General, while relying upon the observations of the Hon'ble Courts, in the cases of Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 504), Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) and Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206) has argued that when the Armed Forces of Pakistan have been called to act in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245 of the Constitution, a High Court cannot entertain any petition under Article 199 of the Constitution which is indeed an expressbar, therefore, this petition as well as the connected petitions merit outright dismissal. On merit, the worthy Advocate General has contended that a good number of petitioners were found involved in anti-state activities and there is every likelihood of repetition of the said acts, therefore, the order of preventive detention of the petitioners was not only justified but in the interest of the State. He has next argued that a complete legal mechanism /dispensation has been provided under the MPO which, inter alia, includes the availability of alternate remedy before the Board constituted under Section 3(5) of the MPO which is an appropriate forum to consider the representation made by an aggrieved person and to pass any order on the detention of the detenue keeping in view the material placed before it.

6. Messrs Muhammad Muazzam Butt and Ali Zaman, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioners while rebutting the arguments of worthy Advocate General, have argued that since the impugned order of detention is based on mala fide, besides being absurd, therefore, this Court has every jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In support of their contention, they have placed reliance on the cases of Shahid Rasool v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Home Department, Lahore and 6 others (2023 YLR 333) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad v. Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 442).

7. Mr. Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate, the learned counsel also representing the petitioners, has argued that despite the constitutional bar, the Court can still look into the propriety of the impugned order if it is clear from the record that the impugned action of authority is tainted with malice. As a result, these petitions are maintainable, and the petitioners deserve to be released.

8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Opinion of the Court on the maintainability of these petitions.

9. It is the case of the respondent-Government that when the Armed Forces are directed by the Federal Government to act in aid of civil power in terms of Article 245 of the Constitution, then during such period and in relation to the area demarcated for the purpose, the High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Before embarking upon this legal proposition, we would like to refer to the history of the said legislation.

10. In the original text, Article 245 read as "the Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so".

11. The bare reading of the said Article would show that it dealt with only the situation where the Armed Forces were required to perform their twofold duties; (i) to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war and (ii) subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so. After general election in 1977 when late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister, the Opposition Parties under the banner of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) carried out large scale demonstration to protest against the alleged rigging and manipulation in the election process by the ruling party of the then Prime Minister. Their demand being re-polling, the protest and demonstrations, though peaceful initially, turned violent and resulted in losses to property and lives. In order to curb the situation, Martial Law was imposed in Lahore, by the Federal Goverment, while exercising its authority under Article 245 of the Constitution, and the Armed Force of Pakistan were directed, subject to law, to act in aid of civil power. The Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971 and the Army Act 1952 were amended whereby certain powers were given to the Armed Forces relating to maintaining public order. The aforesaid impugned actions were challenged before the Lahore High Court through a number of Constitutional Petitions.1

12. Similarly, in Karachi and Hyderabad Divisions, Curfew/Martial Law was imposed which led to an unfortunate incidenti.e. fatal shootings of citizen in Liaqat Abad by the Law Enforcing Agencies deployed in the area. The said acts were challenged by Niaz Ahmed Khan, an Advocate of the Karachi High Court, before the Sindh High Court through various constitutional petitions.2 During the said proceedings, on 16th May, 1977, Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1977 was introduced in Parliament, inter alia, for further amending Article 245 of the Constitution. We have also carefully perused the legislative debate at the time but it appears from the same that no one from PNA had participated in the said proceedings of the Assembly, therefore, the pro and cons of the said amendment could not be debated or considered. However, the Act was ultimately passed and assented to by the President whereby Article 245 of the Constitution was amended as follows: 245. (1) The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so. (2) The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (1) shall not be called in question in any court. (3) A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of Pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245: Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power. (4) Any proceeding in relation to an area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or after the day the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power and pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.

13. The essential issue before this Court is the bar of jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 245(3) of the Constitution. The scheme of governance provided under constitutional dispensation is to have trichotomy of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Each of the organs may be fashioned in a variety of different forms and shapes. Indeed, it is the Constitution which defines the functions of each organ and also specific territories in which, the subject in respect of which, and sometimes even the circumstances in which these functions will be exercised by each of these organs or sub-organs.3

14. The Apex Court in the case of District Bar Association Rawalpindi has re-affirmed the independence of judiciary as one of the salient features and basic structure of the Constitution. It is emphasized in the judgment supra that the salient features, as ascertainable from the Constitution, includes Democracy, Parliamentary form of Government and Independence of Judiciary. The Courts are always vested with jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution inorder to ascertain and identify its defining salient features. It is equally vested with jurisdiction to examine the vires of any constitutional amendment so as to determine whether any of the salient features of the Constitution has been repealed, abrogated or substantively altered as a consequence thereof.4

15. In our Constitution, we can notice that not only Article 199 of the Constitution starts with the phrase 'Subject to Constitution' but there are other provisions in the Constitution expressly barring the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts e.g., Article 212 and Article 225 of the Constitution. In these cases, the bar is obvious for the reasons that in the matter of civil services and election disputes a complete mechanism has been provided either under the Constitution or the law made thereunder. The said disputes are decided by the forum either established under the mandate of Constitution or sub-Constitutional Law but within the parameters provided under Article 175 of the Constitution.5

16. However, very often we are confronted with the situation when no alternate remedy is available to an aggrieved person but still the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred. Article 245(3) of the Constitution is one such example. In the case of Zafar-ul-Ahsan6, while considering the ouster clause in clause (5) of Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, which expressly said that an order of the authority mentioned in clause (3) of that order "shall not be called in question in any Court", Munir, C.J. while speaking for the Court observed: - "If a statute provides that an order made by an authority acting under it shall not be called in question in any Court, all that is necessary to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is that the authority should have been constituted as required by the statute, the person proceeded against should be subject to the jurisdiction of the authority, the ground on which action is taken should be within the grounds stated by the statute, and the order made should be such as could have been made under the statute. These conditions being satisfied, the ouster is complete even though in following the statutory procedure some omission or irregularity might have been committed by the authority. If an appellate authority is provided by the statute, the omissions or irregularity alleged will be a matter for that authority, and not, as rightly observed by the High Court, for a court of law. Of course where the proceedings are taken mala fide and the statute is used merely as a cloak to cover an act which in fact is not taken though it purports to have been taken under the statute, the order will not, in accordance with a long line of decisions in England and in this sub-continent, be treated as an order under the statute".

17. In the case of Zia-ur-Rahman (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the interpretation of the ouster clause as provided in Article 2817 of the Interim Constitution Order, 1972 observed that: "In either view of the matter, therefore, the conclusion to which I have arrived is that the validity given by clause (2) of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution to acts done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers given by Martial Law Regulations and Orders since repealed or even in the purported exercise of those powers do not have the effect of validating acts done coram non judice or without jurisdiction or mala fide. Such an interpretation, in my view, not only gives full effect to the provisions of the Interim Constitution but also administers the will of the Law-maker as far as it can be gathered from a harmonious reading of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 281 along with some of the other provisions of the same Constitution without departing from the well-recognized principle that the Legislature should not be imputed the intention of perpetuating or perpetrating an injustice". Soon after the judgment in Zia-ur-Rehman's case, clause (2) of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution was amended, by adding a deeming clause and an ouster of jurisdiction clause to that Article. Thereafter, the Interim Constitution was replaced by the Constitution of 1973 in which Article 281(2) of the Interim Constitution as Article 269(2) was reproduced with a view to strengthen the validation and ouster provisions. That Article provided that the orders made and actions taken inpurported exercise of powers under Martial Law Regulations and Orders "shall notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever". In Saeed Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan was seized with the matter of interpretation of Article 269(2). Despite the insertion of the words "on any ground whatsoever", the Supreme Court did not agree that the acts, orders or proceedings which are done, taken or made without jurisdiction, mala fide or coram non judice, have been saved from the security of the courts by the ouster clause. The Apex Court in the case of Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar8 dealt with the ouster clause under Article 270-A of the Constitution. The main object whereof was (a) to confer validity upon acts,actions and proceedings, done or taken when the Martial Law was in force; and (b) to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts from examining their validity. If there is a dispute on the point whether a court has or does not have jurisdiction over a certain subject-matter, it can certainly hear that dispute even if the result be that it has to hold that it has no jurisdiction. Indeed, it is now "an established principle of law that the courts of this country are the judges of their own jurisdiction" and it has been consistently held "that the question, as to whether a superior court has jurisdiction in a particular matter or not, is to be decided by the court itself'. In so doing, the courts exercise their judicial power, which is a constitutional power and which cannot be taken away by a sub-constitutional law.9 It is now firmly established that an ouster clause, however, widely worded and whether it occurs in a constitution or in an ordinary Statute, does not save an act or order without jurisdiction (which expression compendiously describes and includes acts and orders coram-non-judice and mala fide).10

18. The interpretation of bar of jurisdiction under Article 245(3) of the Constitution came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble Sindh High Court and Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the cases of Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 504), Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) and Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). It would be important to note that in all these cases, it was not a simple matter of interpretation of Article 245 of the Constitution but in all the three cases, the Armed Forces were directed by the Federal Government to act in aid of civil power when there were extra ordinary circumstances; for example, at the time of insertion of the clause, there was an emergency in the country as contemplated under Articles 23211 and 23312 of the Constitution. In the said dispensation, Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 fell under eclipse as far as the exercise of executive authority by the executive limb of the State and the power of legislation to legislate law for the particular purpose. In Niaz Ahmed Khan's case Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Sindh High Court explained the parameter of powers by the Armed Forces under Article 245 and observed that an embargo has been placed by the Constitution under Article 245 by word subject to law, this excludes any scope of an invasion by the Armed Forces which may amount to transgression of law and therefore, no act on the part of the Armed Forces would be justified in the garb of aid to civil power unless it is shown to be under the law.

19. After amendment, the law laid down through (Seventh Amendment) Act No. XXIII of 1977 was thrashed out by Full Bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the case of Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate.13 Clause-3 of Article 245 of the Constitution is an ouster of jurisdiction clause. The ratio of the case ibid was that the ouster provided in Article 245 does not operate as complete ouster of jurisdiction, and has been made contingent upon the existence of certain factors mentioned in that clause. The Hon'ble Court assumed the jurisdiction by analyzing the law in view of the following jurisdictional points: (i) Whether there is a direction of the Federal Government under Article 245(1); (ii) Whether the Armed Forces start acting in aid of the civil power in pursuance of that direction; and (iii) Whether the area has been specified and identified where they are so acting. Aslam Riaz Hussain J, as then he was, interpreted the ouster of jurisdiction clause of Article 245, as follows:-- "

15. The position with regard to clause (3) of Article 245, is, however, different because the wording of this clause does not spell out a naked ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 but the same has been made contingent upon the existence of certain factors mentioned in that clause".

20. The matter of interpretation of Article 245 also came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the case of Niaz Ahmed Khan.14 The purpose of introduction of Article 245 was laid down as under:- "It was for this reason that the makers of the Constitution enacted Article 245 so that use of Armed Forces may be availed of in an emergency but with the restriction that it be only on a direction issued by the Federal Government and also the Armed Forces will act subject to law". The then Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh explained the parameters of exercise of powers by the Armed Forces under Article 245 and observed that: "An embargo has been placed by the Constitution under Article 245 by the words subject to law this excludes any scope of an invasion by the Armed Forces which may amount to transgression of law and, therefore, no act on the part of the Armed Forces would be justified in the garb of aid to civil power unless it is shown to be under the law". The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court as well as the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the cases (supra) that the ouster clause under Article 245 is not absolute was also approved by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sh. Liaquat Hussain15 the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "

21. The controversy revolves around the meaning of the expression 'act in aid of civil power' employed in the above clause (I) of Article 245 of the Constitution. It seems that the above expression presupposes that the civil power is still there, it is neither supplanted nor effaced out. The civil power is to be preserved and invigorated through the employment of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces can be called in aid under the above clause by the Federal Government inter alia to perform police functions for limited purpose of suppressing riots or preventing threatened disorder or for the purpose of maintaining law and order and security or to assist/help in natural calamities along with the civil authorities. But the Armed Forces cannot abrogate, abridge or displace civil power of which Judiciary is an important and integral part. In other words, the Armed Forces cannot displace the Civil/Criminal Courts while acting in aid of civil power. They can certainly arrest those who threaten or disturb peace and tranquillity. They may also assist in investigation of a case and the prosecution of the same but the case is to be tried by a Court established in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mehram Ali (supra). The employment of the expression "subject to law" clearly demonstrates that the Armed Forces will have to act within the parameters of the Constitution and the law obtaining. The scope of the above power which is exercisable by the Armed Forces in aid of the civil power can only be enlarged by amending Article 245 of the Constitution".

21. From the survey of the aforesaid case-law, we would deduce the following guidelines while invoking constitutional jurisdiction even in the matter when there is absolute bar either statutory or constitutional to assume jurisdiction. (i) That, inter alia, independence of judiciary is one of the basic structure and salient feature of the Constitution; thus, it is vested with jurisdiction to examine even the vires of any constitutional amendment so as to determine whether any of the salient feature of the Constitution has been repealed, abrogated or substantively altered as a consequence thereof. District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 401). (ii) In cases where there is bar of jurisdiction of the High Court, either provided under the Constitution or through any Statute, the High Court still has the jurisdiction to examine the act of any authority, officer or government under its inherent power of judicial review so as to see whether the impugned action is in accordance with law whether jurisdiction exercised is not in excess of jurisdiction vested in an authority and whether there is no element of mala fide. In view of the above, the objection of the worthy Advocate General relating to the maintainability of these petitions is overruled.

22. Having decided the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of these petitions, we proceed to decide the cases on merit. The petitioners in all the petitions have challenged their detention order issued under Section 3 of the MPO by the Deputy Commissioners. We have perused the impugned orders. In some of the orders it is mentioned that upon information placed before the Deputy Commissioner by the District Police Officer that the petitioners indulged in illegal activities and disrupted the peaceful atmosphere of the District, blocked different roads, inflicted losses to the public property and thus, the said activities are prejudicial to the public safety which may cause serious damage to life and liberty of the public warranting immediate preventive actions to safeguard life and property of the public and to maintain peace in the area. The detention orders would show that stereotype orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioners wherein certain orders blank spaces were filled with names of detenue. The respondents could not place on file any material except the First Information Report whereby certain detenues were charged in the incident of 9th May, 2023. It appears from the impugned orders that the Deputy Commissioners, while issuing the impugned orders, have acted in haste and passed the orders of detention in slipshod manner on the basis of sancro-style report of the police without adverting to any material relating to the involvement of the detenues in anti-state activities.

23. The law regarding preventative detention in Pakistan remained developed not only through various Constitutions itself but also through various public safety laws, including the Public Safety Ordinances of 1949, 1952 and the last one in the field i.e. the MPO. The concept of preventive detention is well explained by Mr. A.K. Brohi in "Fundamental Law of Pakistan" which reads as under:- "Preventive detention is an abnormal measure in that it authorises the executive to impose restraints upon the liberty of a man who may not have committed a crime but who, it is apprehended, is about to commit acts that are prejudicial to the public safety etc. It is only during the periods of emergency that resort to this abnormal power can be justified. During the two world wars in England, for example, powers of preventive detention were exercised in the interest of the security of the realm". He quoted from Justice Rex. V. Halliday as under: "The word 'preventive' appearing in the expression 'preventive detention' is used to indicate an idea which may not be grasped by merely contrasting it from the one conveyed by the word 'punitive'. Preventive detention does not thus amount to subjecting a man to punishment but it merely creates a situation in which he may be prevented from doing something which it is apprehended he is likely to do and which act law forbids him to do".

24. Section 3 of the MPO is somehow based on the same principle, however, in order to curtail the liberty of a citizen of Pakistan, which is guaranteed through Article 9 of the Constitution and similarly to be treated in accordance with law being inalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan (Article-4), the Government or an officer of the Government exercising the delegated powers has to satisfy himself that the said order of the detention is issued solely for the purpose of preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order and when it is necessary to do so by an order in writing direct the arrest and detention of such person. The Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the case of Muhammad Younas16 while relying on various judgments of the Apex Court has explained the concept of preventive detention, which reads as under:-- "

8. I would now, with respect, summaries some of the principles to be applied to cases of preventive detention which, according to my understanding, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in the four cages which I have discussed above. But, before doing so, I may note here that Article 201 of the Interim Constitution is in identical terms to Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 and, likewise, in essential respects, section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is similar to rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules which were under consideration before their Lordships in three of the four cases referred to above. Further, Article 3 of the Interim Constitution is the same as Article 2 of the Constitution of 1962 and Article 3 should be read with Article 8 of the Interim Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law. Now, as to the principles deductible from these four cases, these are:- (i) It is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and only in accordance with law, that is according to the accepted norms of legal process and in strict compliance with all the functions and duties laid down by law. (ii) The Superior Court is expressly empowered to probe into exercise of public power by executive authorities to determine whether they have acted with lawful authority and in lawful manner. (iii) The burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of the preventive detention, for which purpose the authority must place the whole material, upon which the order of detention is based, before the Court, the validity of the claim of privilege with respect to any document being within the competence of the Court alone to decide. (iv) The exercise of power by the detaining authority is subject to the ascertainment of reasonable grounds, which is a judicial or quasi judicial function. (v) Action taken without proper application of the mind of the detaining authority would not qualify as action in accordance with law and the power to order detention of a particular person is coupled with the duty to apply the mind as to the necessity of such person's detention on the material available to the authority. (vi) The superior Court is empowered to examine the reasonableness of the action of the detaining authority, that is to say, to see whether a reasonable person would have formed, on the material available to the detaining authority, the same opinion as formed by the authority with regard to the detention of the detenu, and in doing so it would be competent to also consider whether the grounds are within the law making power of the Legis-lature and within the ambit of the statute relating to preventive detention and are not non-existent and are otherwise not bad. (vii) "Satisfaction" of the detaining authority means a state of mind which has been induced by the existence of reasonable grounds for such satisfaction. The word "satisfaction" connotes a state of mind bordering on conviction induced by the existence of facts which have removed the doubts, if any, from the mind and taken-it out of the stage of suspicion. (viii) The superior Court is empowered to make an enquiry into the bona fides or good faith of the action taken by the detaining authority. (ix) If there are several grounds of detention, then each ground contributes to the satisfaction of the detaining authority and no ground can be excluded from consideration in judging the legality of the order of detention and wrongful inclusion of any ground would render the orders of arrest and detention illegal".

25. The Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja17 while explaining the pre-requisite condition i.e. satisfaction before issuing a detention order by the Government or a person exercising the delegated powers stressed that the satisfaction should not be whimsical but the same should be based on some evidence on record justifying the detention order.

26. In the present case, we have to see whether any material existed before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner while making the impugned orders of detention of the detenues. Admittedly, action against the petitioners was initiated under the MPO. We have perused the impugned orders of detention and are of the considered opinion that itlacks the essential attributes envisaged by Section 3 of the MPO and the law laid down by the Superior Courts as stated above. As a result, thereof, the impugned orders issued by the Deputy Commissioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly set aside.

27. The foregoing are reasons for the short order in terms of which these petitions were disposed of. Annexure "A" S. No. Case title

1. W.P. No. 1783-P/2023 "Aftab Alam and another v. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others".

2. W.P. No. 1784-P/2023 "Sajid Iqbal v. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others".

3. W.P. No. 1785-P/2023 "Ajmal Khan v. IG Police KP and others"

4. W.P. No. 1789-P/2023 "Bashir Ahmad v. DC Kohat and others"

5. W.P. No. 1790-P/2023 "Imtiaz Shahid Qureshi v. DC Kohat and others".

6. W.P. No. 1791-P/2023 "Daud Shah v. DC Kohat and others".

7. W.P. No. 1795-P/2023 "Amjeed Saleem Khan v. Government of KP and others".

8. W.P. No. 1796-P/2023 "Muhammad Shoaib v. DC Peshawar and others".

9. W.P. No. 1797-P/2023 "Abid Ullah v. DC Peshawar and others".

10. W.P. No. 1798-P/2023 "Mansoor v. DC Peshawar and others".

11. W.P. No. 1799-P/2023 "Shahab-ud-Din v. DC Peshawar and others".

12. W.P. No. 1800-P/2023 "Fawad Ali and another v. DC Mardan and others".

13. W.P. No. 1801-P/2023 "Sajid lqbal v. DC Mardan and another".

14. W.P. No. 1802-P/2023 "Hazrat Umar v. DC Mardan and another".

15. W.P. No. 1805-P/2023 "Abdur Rehman v. Government of KP and others".

16. W.P. No. 1808-P/2023 "Tariq Mehmood Aryani alias Tariq Aryani v. The State and others".

17. W.P. No. 1809-P/2023 "Noor Gul v. The State and others".

18. W.P. No. 1810-P/2023 "Asif Khan Ex-MPA PK 76 and others v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

19. W.P. No. 1811-P/2023 "Ghulam Ghous v. Government of KP and others".

20. W.P. No. 1812-P/2023 "Mian Hamayoon Shah v. DC Nowshera and others".

21. W.P. No. 1818-P/2023 "Naeem v. Secretary Home and others".

22. W.P. No. 1819-P/2023 "Shakeel Khan v. Secretary Home and others "

23. W.P. No. 1826-P/2023 "Shams-ur-Rehman v. Government of KP and others".

24. W.P. No. 1827-P/2023 "Shah Khalid v. The State through AG and others".

25. W.P. No. 1828-P/2023 "Zahid v. The State through AG and others".

26. W.P. No. 1829-P/2023 "Amanullah v. The State through AG and others".

27. W.P. No. 1830-P/2023 "Liaqat All v. The State through AG and others".

28. W.P. No. 1831-P/2023 "Mohammad Ijaz v. The State through AG and others".

29. W.P. No. 1833-P/2023 "Gulab Noor v. DPO, Peshawar and others".

30. W.P. No. 1834-P/2023 "Farhad Qureshi v. Government of KP and others".

31. W.P. No. 1838-P/2023 "Muhammad Iqbal and another v. DPO, Peshawar and others".

32. W.P. No. 1839-P/2023 "Imran v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

33. W.P. No. 1840-P/2023 "Muhammad Zeb v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

34. W.P. No. 1841-P/2023 "Saqib Khan alias Saqib v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

35. W.P. No. 1842-P/2023 "Ibrahim v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

36. W.P. No. 1843-P/2023 "Ishtiaq Ali v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

37. W.P. No. 1844-P/2023 "Fayaz Ahmad v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

38. W.P. No. 1845-P/2023 "Muhammad Shahid v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

39. W.P. No. 1846-P/2023 "Shahab Ali v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

40. W.P. No. 1847-P/2023 "Shaukat v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

41. W.P. No. 1848-P/2023 "Sakhawat v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

42. W.P. No. 1849-P/2023 "Umar Hayat v. Deputy Commissioner, Swat".

43. W.P. No. 1850-P/2023 "Zafar Ali v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

44. W.P. No. 1851-P/2023 "Muslim Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

45. W.P. No. 1852-P/2023 "Amir Iqbal v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

46. W.P. No. 1853-P/2023 "Mumtaz v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

47. W.P. No. 1854-P/2023 "Wajid Ali v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

48. W.P. No. 1855-P/2023 "Khan Bacha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

49. W.P. No. 1856-P/2023 "Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

50. W.P. No. 1857-P/2023 "Muhammad Salih v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

51. W.P. No. 1858-P/2023 "Shah Zeeb v. The State through AG KP and others".

52. W.P. No. 1859-P/2023 "Kazim Shah v. The State and others".

53. W.P. No. 1860-P/2023 "Alamgir v. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

54. W.P. No. 1861-P/2023 "Ahmad Ali v. The State and others".

55. W.P. No. 1862-P/2023 "Muhammad Jehangir v. The State and others".

56. W.P. No. 1863-P/2023 "Mohammad Ibrahim v. The State and others".

57. W.P. No. 1864-P/2023 "Sabir Rahman v. The State and others".

58. W.P. No. 1871-P/2023 "Abdullah v. The State through AG KP and others".

59. W.P. No. 1872-P/2023 "Husain Ullah v. The State through AG KP and others".

60. W.P. No. 1873-P/2023 "Mohammad Asad v. The State through AG KP and others".

61. W.P. No. 1874-P/2023 "Nazim Hussain v. The State through AG KP and others".

62. W.P. No. 1875-P/2023 "Zaheer-ud-Din Babar v. The State through AG KP and others".

63. W.P. No. 1876-P/2023 "Zeshan v. The State through AG KP and others".

64. W.P. No. 1877-P/2023 "Arsalan v. The State through AG KP and others".

65. W.P. No. 1878-P/2023 "Said Jamal v. The State through AG KP and others".

66. W.P. No. 1879-P/2023 "Kamran Ali and others v. The State through AG KP and others".

67. W.P. No. 1880-P/2023 "Waleed and others v. Government of KP and others".

68. W.P. No. 1884-P/2023 "Gohar Ali Shah v. The State through AG KP and others".

69. W.P. No. 1885-P/2023 "Raham Dad v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

70. W.P. No. 1886-P/2023 "Salman Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

71. W.P. No. 1887-P/2023 "Gul Bashar v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

72. W.P. No. 1888-P/2023 "Amin Ullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

73. W.P. No. 1889-P/2023 "Etehad Ullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

74. W.P. No. 1890-P/2023 "Fazal Raziq v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

75. W.P. No. 1891-P/2023 "Sanaullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others"

76. W.P. No. 1892-P/2023 "Rahatullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

77. W.P. No. 1893-P/2023 "Abdul Malik v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

78. W.P. No. 1894-P/2023 "Said Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

79. W.P. No. 1895-P/2023 "Sajid Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

80. W.P. No. 1896-P/2023 "Arab Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

81. W.P. No. 1897-P/2023 "Liaqat Sher v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

82. W.P. No. 1898-P/2023 "Arif Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

83. W.P. No. 1907-P/2023 "Jehan Zeb v. Government of KP and others".

84. W.P. No. 1913-P/2023 "Hussain Akbar and another v. The State through AG KP and others".

85. W.P. No. 1914-P/2023 "Abdul Malik v. The State through AG KP and others".

86. W.P. No. 1915-P/2023 "Ajmal Shah v. The State through AG KP and others".

87. W.P. No. 1916-P/2023 "Said Mohammad and others v. The State through AG KP and others".

88. W.P. No. 1920-P/2023 "Habibur Rehman v. DPO, Mardan and others".

89. W.P. No. 1921-P/2023 "Fazal-ur-Rehman v. DPO, Mardan and others".

90. W.P. No. 1922-P/2023 "Mudassir Hussain v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

91. W.P. No. 1923-P/2023 "Aizaz v. The State through AG KP and others".

92. W.P. No. 1924-P/2023 "Shakeel v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

93. W.P. No. 1925-P/2023 "Inamullah v. Government of KP and others".

94. W.P. No. 1926-P/2023 "Hayat Ali Alias Muhammad Hayat v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

95. W.P. No. 1927-P/2023 "Raja Saeed v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

96. W.P. No. 1928-P/2023 "Azmat Khan alias Azmat v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshsera and others".

97. W.P. No. 1929-P/2023 "Nazim Shah alias Nazim v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

98. W.P. No. 1930-P/2023 "Hasnain Khan alias Hasnain v. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others".

99. W.P. No. 1931-P/2023 "Muhammad Rafiq and another v. DC Nowshera and others".

100. W.P. No. 1934-P/2023 "Sufyian and another v. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others".

101. W.P. No. 1935-P/2023 "Riaz Muhammad and others v. Government of KP through Secretary Home and others".

102. W.P. No. 1937-P/2023 "Waqas Khan v. Deputy Commissioner and others".

103. W.P. No. 1938-P/2023 "Sulaiman v. The State through AG KP and others".

104. W.P. No. 1939-P/2023 "Ali Gohar and others v. The State through AG KP and others".

105. W.P. No. 1940-P/2023 "Sanan Iqbal v. The State through AG KP and others".

106. W.P. No. 1941-P/2023 "Amjid Ali v. The State through AG KP and others".

107. W.P. No. 1942-P/2023 "Gul Habib v. The State through AG KP and others".

108. W.P. No. 1943-P/2023 "Ijaz Ahmad and others v. The State through AG KP and others".

109. W.P. No. 1944-P/2023 "Muhammad Shah Saud v. Government of KP and others".

110. W.P. No. 1945-P/2023 "Maaz Ullah alias Maaz v. The State and others".

111. W.P. No. 1947-P/2023 "Saddam Hussain v. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others".

112. W.P. No. 1948-P/2023 "Nasir v. Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and others".

113. W.P. No. 1949-P/2023 "Shehzad v. DPO, Mardan and others".

114. W.P. No. 1952-P/2023 "Ashad Khan alias Arshad v. Government of KP and others".

115. W.P. No. 1953-P/2023 "Adnan v. Government of KP and others".

116. W.P. No. 1954-P/2024 "Muhammad Arif alias Arif v. The DC Nowshera and others".

117. W.P. No. 1955-P/2023 "Habibullah v. DPO, Peshawar and others".

118. W.P. No. 1956-P/2023 "Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of KP and others".

119. W.P. No. 1959-P/2023 "Faizan v. Government of KP and others".

120. W.P. No. 1960-P/2023 "Bilal v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

121. W.P. No. 1961-P/2023 "Haji Zarb Ullah and another v. The State through AG KP and others.

122. W.P. No. 1962-P/2023 "Farooq Hussain v. The State and others".

123. W.P. No. 1972-P/2023 "Atif Khan alias Atif Noor v. The State through AG KP and others".

124. W.P. No. 1973-P/2023 "Mudassir v. The State through AG KP and others".

125. W.P. No. 1974-P/2023 "Hussan Ul Wahab v. The State through AG KP and others".

126. W.P. No. 1975-P/2023 "Nasir Khan v. The State through AG KP and others".

127. W.P. No. 1976-P/2023 "Abid Khan v. The State through AG KP and others".

128. W.P. No. 1977-P/2023 "Bilal v. The State through AG KP and others".

129. W.P. No. 1978-P/2023 "Hazrat Hussain v. The State through AG KP and others".

130. W.P. No. 1979-P/2023 "Sajjad Ahmad v. The State through AG KP and others".

131. W.P. No. 1980-P/2023 "Muhammad Abu Bakar v. Government of KP and others"

132. W.P. No. 1981-P/2023 "Muhammad Ismail v. The State and others".

133. W.P. No. 1982-P/2023 "Sabzali v. The State and others".

134. W.P. No. 1984-P/2023 "Abdul Malik v. The State".

135. W.P. No. 1985-P/2023 "Jawad v. The State and others".

136. W.P. No. 1986-P/2023 "Shafat Jan and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

137. W.P. No. 1987-P/2023 "Sikandar Shah v. The State through AG KP and others".

138. W.P. No. 1988-P/2023 "Ali Akbar v. The State through AG KP and others".

139. W.P. No. 1989-P/2023 "Mohammad Baseer v. The State through AG KP and others".

140. W.P. No. 1990-P/2023 "Fazli Wahab v. The State through AG KP and others".

141. W.P. No. 1991-P/2023 "Mohammad Riaz v. The State through AG KP and others".

142. W.P. No. 2001-P/2023 "Ahmad Ali v. The State through AG KP and others".

143. W.P. No. 2002-P/2023 "Momtaz Ali v. The State through AG KP and others".

144. W.P. No. 2003-P/2023 "Saud Khan v. The State through AG KP and others".

145. W.P. No. 2004-P/2023 "Yasir Khan v. The State through AG KP and others".

146. W.P. No. 2005-P/2023 "Mohammad Jehangir v. The State through AG KP and others".

147. W.P. No. 2008-P/2023 "Afsar Khan v. Government of KP and others".

148. W.P. No. 2009-P/2023 "Waqas Khan Shinwari v. The State and others".

149. W.P. No. 2013 "Yasin Sher Bahadar v. Secretary Home and others".

150. W.P. No. 2014-P/2023 "Ismail Khan v. DPO, Peshawar and others".

151. W.P. No. 2015-P/2023 "Usama v. Government of KP through Secretary Home and others ".

152. W.P. No. 2017-P/2023 "Kafeel Ahmad v. Secretary Home and others".

153. W.P. No. 2018-P/2023 "Intizar Mohammad v. The State through AG KP and others".

154. W.P. No. 2021-P/2023 "Waqas v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

155. W.P. No. 2031-P/2023 "Junaid and others v. Government of KP through Secretary Home and others".

156. W.P. No. 2037-P/2023 "Nouman v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

157. W.P. No. 2038-P/2023 "Saleem Jan v. Government of KP and others".

158. W.P. No. 2043-P/2023 "Noor Ullah and another v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

159. W.P. No. 2044-P/2023 "Malik Amjad Ali Khan v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

160. W.P. No. 2045-P/2023 "Munawar Shah v. Government of KP and others".

161. W.P. No. 2046-P/2023 "Nouman Khan Khattak v. Government of KP and others".

162. W.P. No. 2047-P/2023 "Ibrar and others v. Government of KP and others".

163. W.P. No. 2053-P/2023 "Daud Khan v. DPO Peshawar and others".

164. W.P. No. 2055-P/2023 "Ijaz Ahmad v. Government of KPK and others".

165. W.P. No. 2056-P/2023 "Muhammad Farman v. Government of KPK".

166. W.P. No. 2057-P/2023 "Muhammad Ishaq v. Deputy Commissioner and others".

167. W.P. No. 2062-P/2023 "Shahid Rehman v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

168. W.P. No. 2063-P/2023 "Muhammad Bilal v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

169. W.P. No. 2064-P/2023 "Ziaur Rehman v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

170. W.P. No. 2065-P/2023 "Haseeb Ahmad v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

171. W.P. No. 2066-P/2023 "Azizullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

172. W.P. No. 2067-P/2023 "Noor Alam v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

173. W.P. No. 2068-P/2023 "Iqtadar Ali Bangash v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

174. W.P. No. 2069-P/2023 "Muhammad Saeed Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

175. W.P. No. 2070-P/2023 "Habibur Rehman v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

176. W.P. No. 2071-P/2023 "Muhammad v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

177. W.P. No. 2072-P/2023 "Muhammad Imtiaz v. The State".

178. W.P. No. 2073-P/2023 "Hazrat Umar v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

179. W.P. No. 2074-P/2023 "Rab Nawaz v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

180. W.P. No. 2075-P/2023 "Muhammad Wazir v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

181. W.P. No. 2076-P/2023 "Basir Ahmad Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

182. W.P. No. 2077-P/2023 "Maqbool Ahmad v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others". 183 W.P. No. 2078-P/2023 "Asmat Ullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

184. W.P. No. 2079-P/2023 "Saif Ullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

185. W.P. No. 2080-P/2023 "Shahid Ullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

186. W.P. No. 2081-P/2023 "Farmanullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

187. W.P. No. 2082-P/2023 "Kamran Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

188. W.P. No. 2085-P/2023 "Saeed Orakzai v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

189. W.P. No. 2090-P/2023 "Salman Khan v. DPO, Peshawar and others".

190. W.P. No. 2091-P/2023 "Arsala Khan v. Government of KP and others".

191. W.P. No. 2092-P/2023 "Wasif v. Government of KPK"

192. W.P. No. 2094-P/2023 "Muhammad Wasim v. Government of KPK".

193. W.P. No. 2095-P/2023 "Tahir Ullah v. Government of KP and others".

194. W.P. No. 2098-P/2023 "Junaid v. District Police Officer, Peshawar and others".

195. W.P. No. 2099-P/2023 "Muhammad Saleem v. Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar".

196. W.P. No. 2100-P/2023 "Muhammad Habib v. Government of KP and others".

197. W.P. No. 2101-P/2023 "Abdul Hakeem v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

198. W.P. No. 2102-P/2023 "Sadiq ur Rehman v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

199. W.P. No. 2103-P/2023 "Wilayat Shah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

200. W.P. No. 2104-P/2023 "Rab Nawaz v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

201. W.P. No. 2105-P/2023 "Spin Badshah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

202. W.P. No. 2106-P/2023 "Ismail Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

203. W.P. No. 2107-P/2023 "Saif Ullah v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

204. W.P. No. 2108-P/2023 "Abbas Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

205. W.P. No. 2109-P/2023 "Sadiq Nawaz v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

206. W.P. No. 2110-P/2023 "Fazal Hameed v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

207. W.P. No. 2111-P/2023 "Farmanullah Khan v. Government of KP and others".

208. W.P. No. 2126-P/2023 "Shahid v. Government of KPK".

209. W.P. No. 2127-P/2023 "Abuzar v. Government of KPK".

210. W.P. No. 2128-P/2023 "Talib Shah v. Government of KR through Chief Secretary and others".

211. W.P. No. 2129-P/2023 "Arbab Jehandad Khan and others v. Government of KP and others".

212. W.P. No. 2130-P/2023 "Abu Zar v. Government of KP and others".

213. W.P. No. 2138-P/2023 "Rehan Khan v. Government of KPK".

214. W.P. No. 2140-P/2023 "Muhammad Umar v. The DC Hangu and others".

215. W.P. No. 2141-P/2023 "Shaukat Hayat v. The DC, Hangu and others".

216. W.P. No. 2142-P/2023 "Amir Khan v. The DC, Hangu and others".

217. W.P. No. 2143-P/2023 "Muqid Ullah alias Safeer Ullah v. Government of KR and others".

218. W.P. No. 2144-P/2023 "Mohammad Riaz v. The State through AG KP and others".

219. W.P. No. 2151-P/2023 "Asad Ali v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

220. W.P. No. 2152-P/2023 "Faheem Durrani v. Government of KP and others".

221. W.P. No. 2154-P/2023 "Arshad Khan v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

222. W.P. No. 2156-P/2023 "Abu Bakar Siddique v. Government of KP and others".

223. W.P. No. 2157-P/2023 "Zubair v. Government of KP and others".

224. W.P. No. 2158-P/2023 "Asfandyar v. Government of KP and others .

225. W.P. No. 2167-P/2023 "Abdul Haleem v. The DC Nowshera and others".

226. W.P. No. 2171-P/2023 "Hamid Alam v. Government of KPK".

227. W.P. No. 2173-P/2023 "Noor Ullah v. Government of KP and others".

228. W.P. No. 2176-P/2023 "Hayat Noor v. Government of KP and others .

229. W.P. No. 2184-P/2023 "Iqrar v. Government of KP and others".

230. W.P. No. 2202-P/2023 "Syed Ali Shah v. The State through AG KP and others".

231. W.P. No. 2205-P/2023 "Zakir Ullah v. Government of KP and others .

232. W.P. No. 2213-P/2023 "Muhammad Jalal v. The State through AG KP and others".

233. W.P. No. 2219-P/2023 "Sohail v. Government of KP and others"

234. W.P. No. 2220-P/2023 "Said Hussain v. Government of KP and others".

235. W.P. No. 2221-P/2023 "Muhammad Asif v. Government of KP and others".

236. W.P. No. 2244-P/2023 "Muhammad Uzair v. The State through AG KP and others".

237. W.P. No. 2245-P/2023 "Sadiq Shah v. The DC, Hangu and others".

238. W.P. No. 2246-P/2023 "Muhammad Rwais v. DC Hangu and others".

239. W.P. No. 2247-P/2023 "Khiyal Muhammad v. The Deputy Commissioner Hangu".

240. W.P. No. 2248-P/2023 "Idrees Khan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

241. W.P. No. 2249-P/2023 "Adeel Muhammad and others v. Government of KP through Secretary Home and others".

242. W.P. No. 2256-P/2023 "Amir Shah v. Government of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

243. W.P. No. 2257-P/2023 "Sadiq Akbar v. The State and others".

244. W.P. No. 2183-P/2023 "Amir Khan v. Government of KP and others".

245. W.P. No. 2187-P/2023 "Ikram Ullah and another v. Government of KP through Secretary Home and others".

246. W.P. No. 2222-P/2023 "Abdul Ghafoor v. The State and others". MH/237/P Petition allowed. 1 Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). 2 Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) 3 The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49) 4 District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401). 5 Service Tribunal/Election Tribunal 6 Zafar-ul-Ahsan v. The Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1960 SC 113) 7 281. (1) All Proclamations, President's Orders, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, and all other laws made as from the twenty-fifth day of March 1969, are hereby declared, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, to have been validly made by the competent authority, and shall not be called in question in any Court. (2) All orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, on or after the twenty-fifth day of March, 1969, in exercise of the powers derived from any President's Orders, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, enactments, notification, rules, orders or bye-laws, or in execution of any orders made or sentences passed by an authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done. (3) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Court against any authority or any person for or on account of or in respect of any order made, proceedings taken or not done, whether in the exercise or purported exercise of powers referred to in clause (2), or in execution of or in compliance with orders made or sentences passed in exercise or purported exercise of such powers. 8 Federation of Pakistan v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (PLD 1989 SC 26) 9 Judicial Review of Public Acts (Volume-1) by Justice (R) Fazal Karim. 10 Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151). 11 232. (1) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency. Provided that for imposition of emergency due to internal disturbances beyond the powers of a Provincial Government to control a resolution from the Provincial Assembly or that Province shall be required: Provided further that if the President acts on his own, the Proclamation of Emergency shall be placed before both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for approval by each House within ten days. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force? (a) Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall have power to make laws for a Province, or any part thereof, with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List. (b) the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the giving of directions to a Province as to the manner in which the executive authority of the Province is to be exercised; and (c) the Federal Government may by Order assure to itself, or direct the Governor of a Province to assume on behalf of the Federal Government, all or any of the functions of the Government of the Province, and all or any of the powers vested in, or exercisable by, any body or authority in the Province other than the Provincial Assembly, and make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Federal Government to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending, in whole or in part, the operation of any provisions of the Constitution relating to any body or authority in the Province: Provided that nothing in paragraph (c) shall authorize the Federal Government to assume to itself, or direct the Governor of the Province to assume on its behalf, any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend either in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of the Constitution relating to High Courts. (3) The power of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to make laws for a Province with respect to any matter shall include power to make laws conferring powers and imposing duties, or authorizing the conferring of powers and the imposition of duties upon the Federation, or officers and authorities of the Federation, as respects that matter. (4) Nothing in this Article shall restrict the power of a Provincial Assembly to make any law which under the Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of an Act of Provincial law is repugnant to any provision of an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) which Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has under this Article power to make, the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has under this Article power to make, the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), whether passed before or after the Provincial law, shall prevail and the Provincial law shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) continues to have effect, be void. (5) A law made by Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) which Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) would not but for the issue of a Proclamation of Emergency have been competent to make, shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation of Emergency has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period. (6) While a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) may by law extend the term of the National Assembly for a period not exceeding one year and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to be in force. (7) A Proclamation of Emergency shall be laid before a joint sitting which shall be summoned by the President to meet within thirty days of the Proclamation being issued and- (a) Shall cease to be in force at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution of the joint sitting; (b) shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a), cease to be in force upon a resolution disapproving the proclamation being passed by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the two Houses in joint sitting. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (7), if the National Assembly stands dissolved at the time when a Proclamation of Emergency is issued, the Proclamation shall continue in force for a period of four months but, if a general election to the Assembly is not held before the expiration of that period, it shall cease to be in force at the expiration of that period unless it has earlier been approved by a resolution of the Senate. 12 233. (1) Nothing contained in Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 24 shall, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, restrict the power of the State as defined in Article 7 to make any law or to take any executive action which it would, but for the provisions in the said Articles, be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect, and shall be deemed to have been repealed, at the time when the Proclamation is revoked or has ceased to be in force. (2) While a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, the President may, by Order, declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II as may be specified in the Order, and any proceeding in any court which is for the enforcement, or involves the determination of any question as to the infringement, of any of the Rights so specified, shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force, and any such Order may be made in respect of the whole or any part of Pakistan. (3) Every Order made under this Article shall, as soon as may be, be laid before both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) separately for approval and the provisions of clauses (7) and (8) of Article 232 shall apply to such an Order as they apply to a Proclamation of Emergency. 13 Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). 14 Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604). 15 Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 SC 504) 16 Muhammad Younas v. Province of Sindh through the Secretary to the Government of Sindh Home Department and Secretariat, Karachi and 2 others (PLD 1973 Karachi 694) 17 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad v. Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja and others (PLD 2003 SC 442)