1968 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL HAKIM, J.‑This Rule which arises out of an application under section 491 of. the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued on the 20th February 1967 calling upon the opposite-parties to show cause why the detenu‑Protabuddin Ahmad K. V. now detained in the Dacca Central Jail should not be brought before this Court to be dealt with in accordance with law and set at liberty or such other or further order or orders passed Govt. as to this Court may seem fit and proper. It has been stated in the petition that the detenu is a Abdul peaceful and law‑abiding citizen of Pakistan and the General Secretary of Inland River Transport Workers' Union and that he never took part in any anti‑State activities nor ever indulged in any activities prejudicial to the public safety, maintenance of the public order and maintenance of the peaceful condition in the country, except his lawful Trade Union activities. The petition further goes on to state that the WAPDA Employees' Union declared a general strike with effect from the 16th of February 1967 and the opposite‑party No. 2 the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca passed an order against some members of the said Union to prevent them from implementing their decision on a strike. The detenu is not in any way connected with the WAPDA or the employees' Union except that some of the office‑bearers of the "Purba Pakistan Sramik Parisad" of which the detenu is the. General Secretary. The Deputy Commissioner miscalculating that the detenu has con nection with the WAPDA Employees' Union, issued an order of detention the 14th February 1957, under rule 32(1;(6) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 against the detenu on some mis conception and that on the basis of that detention order the local police arrested the detenu on 14‑2‑67 and since then the detenu is in custody. The petition also asserts that the WAPDA Employees' Union called off the strike and consequently no strike took place on 16‑2‑67", and that the detenu has been wrongly detained on ficti tious reports of the police. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca has submitted a counter affidavit controverting the allegations made in the petition. It has been stated in the counter‑affidavit that the WAPDA Employees' Union declared a strike from the 16th February 1967, and the source of the Government gathered information that the leaders of the said Union in a secret meeting decided to hold the strike at the power stations at Kaptai, Siddergonj and other places of East Pakistan intending to paralyse the supply of electricity throughout East Pakistan. The detenu actively participated in the said secret meeting and advised the leaders and workers of the WAPDA Employees' Union to stick to their decision. It has also been asserted in the counter‑affidavit that the detenu took active part in the meeting of the WAPDA Employees' Union and shared in the deliberations in which the decision to strike from 16‑2‑67 was taken. The counter‑affidavit further goes on to say that the deponent on the basis of the above information and materials placed before him, was satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order and maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and with a view to preventing him from acting in the manner as aforesaid, passed the impugned order under Rule 32(i)(b) for detention of the detenu for a period of 3 months, in satisfaction thereof, after due application of his mind to the materials as stated above. Mr. Farid Ahmad, learned. Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that there was no materials against the detenu for action under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and the detention was made practically without any basis and that the detaining. authority issued the impugned order without proper application of mind to the materials and on extraneous consideration, for political victimization and that such an order cannot be maintainable in law. This argument in our opinion does not stand scrutiny if considered in the light of the facts reproduced in the counter affidavit. It has been categorically stated in the counter afdavit that the detenu, though not a member of the WAPDA Employees' Union actively participated in the secret meeting of the leaders and porkers of the said Union and took part in their deliberations in which the decision to hold the general strike from 16‑2‑67 was taken, intending thereby to paralyse the supply of electricity throughout the Province. That being the position it cannot be said that there was no materials for action under Rule

32. The Deputy Commissioner of the district is the duly authorised detaining authority to take action under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The materials, as indicated above, having been placed before him and the impugned order of detention having been passed in satisfaction thereof, aft e proper application of mind to the materials, it cannot also be argued that the impugned order is bad in any way. The detention order itself also indicates that there were materials before the Deputy Commissioner and the order was passed in satisfaction thereof. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order of detention dated the 14th of February 1967 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca on the basis of which the detention has been made in this case cannot be questioned at all in view of the facts and position referred to above. Mr. Farid Ahmad has next submitted that the strike in question having been called off and in fact no strike having taken place on the 16th of February 1967 there is no justification now to keep the detenu in custody any more. We have already found above that the Deputy Commissioner on being satisfied with the materials placed before him issued the impugned order after proper application of mind and that the detention order cannot be called illegal. There is no limitation as to the extent of time for which a detention can to directed by the Executive Government: Whether all the circumstances and causes which necessitated and justified the issuance of the detention order still subsist or not is to be decided by the detaining authority. That being the position this Court cannot pass any opinion as to the "justification" or "non justification" of keeping the detenu now in detention, though we feel that the strike having been called off, the main cause of action seems to be no more in existence and in that view of the matter, the case of the detenu deserves some consideration in the case. This is, however, a matter to be considered by the Government and the detenu may approach the appropriate authority for consideration of this aspect of his case. The rule is accordingly discharged. BAQUER, J.‑I agree.