P L D 1968 Lahore 667 (PLP)

ATAULLAH SAJJAD, J.‑

This order deals with Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2920 of 1967. Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 is directed against the orders, dated the 3rd of February 1967, passed by the Governor of West Pakistan against (1) Ghulam Hussain son of Abdul Rahim, (2) Abdul Khaliq son of Allah Noor, and (3) Madar Bakhsh son of Hassan Khan, for their detention under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, for a period of two months, and subsequent orders of extension, dated the Ist of August 1967, against the same detenus, extending the order of their detention by another two months. Originally Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 was filed on behalf of 25 detenus, but all others, having been released, during the pendency of the above petition, we are now called upon to decide the question of the legality of the orders of detention, and the subsequent extension of the term of detention by order, dated the 1st of August 1967, only in respect of the above‑named three detenus. As stated above, the original order of detention was passed on the 3rd of February 1967 for a period of two months and then extension in the period of detention was made from time to time; the last order of extension, having been passed for a further period of two months on the 1st of August 1967. In view of this circumstance, the writ petition was amended, in which the legality of the original order of detention, and that of the order of extension, dated the 1st of August 1967 has been assailed.

2. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2920 of 1967 was sent by Malik Fazal Elahi Qurban, through jail, to challenge the legality of the order of the extension of his detention, dated the 31st of July 1967, passed by the order of the Governor of West Pakistan. He was originally detained for a period of two months by order, dated the 2nd of February 1967, and the period of his detention was extended from time to time. He sent through jail an application, challenging the order of his detention and subsequent extensions. This application was registered as Writ Petition No. 1117 of 1967. Both writ Petitions Nos. 457 and 1117 of 1967 were put up for hearing before another Bench, along with other similar matters, comprising of Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ. The connected cases were heard by the above Bench, but these two cases could not be disposed of for certain reasons and were sent to the Vacation Bench for disposal by their order, dated the 26th of July 1967. The case came up before the Court on the 31st of July 1967, and ultimately a notice was issued to the parties for the 9th of August 1967. Since the period of the orders of extension assailed in Writ Petition No. 1117 of 1967 had already expired. We dismissed the same on the 9th of August 1967 as having become infructuous with the result that so far as Malik Fazal Elahi Qurban is concerned, we have to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2920 of 1967, only.

3. Since the background of events, which led to the passing of the detention orders, and the subsequent orders of extension is common to both these cases, we would like to make a factual appraisal of the situation when the orders of detention in both the cases were passed.

4. The facts as culled out from the pleadings of the parties and the oral evidence adduced before us are these. In December 1966 and January 1967, the food situation in the Province became bleak and because of short supply, the prices started rising suddenly. There was discontent among the Railway workers and they started voicing their demands particu larly for supply of wheat at subsidised rates and increase in their dearness allowance through their respective labour Unions.

5. The three detenus in Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 are members and office‑bearers of the Railway Workers' Union, Lahore, whose General Secretary is Mirza Ibrahim. This is an un‑registered Body and has not been recognised by the Railway authorities. Ghulam Hussain, detenu, is a Cashier of the above Union, Abdul Khaliq detenu is the General Secretary while Madar Bux detenu is the Vice‑President of the above Union. Three other Unions of the Railway workers need mention here. They are United Union of P. W. R. Workers with Ch. Umar Din as its General Secretary, P. W. R. Workers' Union with Sheikh Abdul Ghafoor as its General Secretary and Railway Mazdoor Union, which is presided over by one Mr. M. A. Rahim. Out of the above three Unions, the Unions led by Ch. Umar Din and Mr. M. A. Rahim are registered Bodies and have been recognised by the Railway authorities. The Union led by Sh. Abdul Ghafoor is a registered Body, but has not been recognised by the Railway authorities. It appears that the Railway workers had been feeling the economic pressure due to the rising prices of food even before December 1966 and Sh. Abdul Ghafoor served a notice of strike on the Railway on the 29th of October 1966 on behalf of his Union. Ch. Umar Din also served a notice for strike on the 23rd of December 1966. The Railway Workers' Union, Lahore to which the detenus belong also espoused the cause of its members. We find from the evidence of the Home Secretary that the three detenus were present in a number of meetings held in early January 1967 and subsequent dates, which were addressed by Mirza Ibrahim. It is stated in para. 5 of the writ petition that the workers of this Union were voicing the grievances of the Railway Workers and were making demands since November 1966 by passing resolutions in general meetings, as well as those of the Executive Committee of the said Union. One of the demands was the supply of cheap wheat or Atta by the Railway authorities, and increase in the dearness allowance. It was decided by this Union to take out a procession of Railway workers after the working hours on the 28th of January 1967, so that the workers forming the procession may be able to deliver a memorandum of their demands to the authorities concerned. According to the Home Secretary, the processionists wanted to march to the Government House. The procession, however, could not be taken up, because the District Magistrate of Lahore promulgated an order under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Union, therefore, decided that their demands be printed and circulated amongst the workers and the authorities. A Press Conference was held by the President of this Union namely Mirza Ibrahim on the 30th of January 1967, and a printed memorandum of demands was also circulated as decided on the 28th of January 1967.

6. There was a token strike on the 30th of January 1967, followed by a general strike on the 31st of January 1967. The general strike, which started on the 31st of January 1967 spread, in the words of the Home Secretary, like a contagion, and between the 31st of January 1967 and 3rd of February 1967 there was outburst of violence at Railway Stations of Rohri. Sukkur, Mirpur Khas, Hyderabad, Lahore and Karachi. Acts of violence also took place at other places even after the 3rd of February 1967.

7. The Railway authorities came to an agreement with Ch. Umar Din on the 2nd of February 1967 (Copy Exh. R. A.). An agreement was also arrived at between Mirza Ibrahim and the Railway authorities on the night between the 2nd and the 3rd of February 1967 (Copy Exh. P. B.). This agreement was to be signed by four other representatives of the labour, but before it could be finalised, Mirza Ibrahim was arrested and detained under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The situation became pretty serious. on the morning of the 3rd of February 1967, when Army and Police had to be called to suppress rioting and prevent incendiarism in the Railway Loco shed area. The Railway in order to prevent damage to their property declared a lock‑out and things returned to normalcy only on the 9th of February 1967, when the Railway communi cations started functioning as before. The present three detenus (Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967) were arrested and detained as a result of the order of the Government made orally in the evening of the 3rd of February 1967.

8. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Provincial Government, it was asserted that the detenus were field workers of Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim and were present in almost all the meetings held by Mirza Ibrahim, whether publicly or in camera. It is also asserted that the activities of the detenus culminated in the strike, which took place on the 30th of January 1967, and was mainly the result of the activities of the detenus. In para. 8 of the written statement, it has been asserted that the Police and the Army had to be called on the 3rd of February 1967 in order to ensure protection to public property at different places, because the strikers were resorting to force under the influence of the detenus‑who facilitated the entry of the strikers into the powerhouse with a view to cause damage to it.

9. The learned Additional Advocate‑General produced Mr. Masud Nabi Noor, who took over as Provincial Home Secretary on the forenoon of the 1st of February 1967, as a witness. The trouble, according to the witness was brewing about two months or a little less than two months before the actual date, on which the strike took place and the reasons for this state of affairs were, deteriorating food situation and the rising prices. According to the witness, the food situation and the conditions of economic distress were being exploited by the leaders of the Railway workers and some of the Unions gave notices to the Government putting up fantastic demands, like sudden increase in their allowances by Rs. 50 and increase in their salaries even up to Rs.

150. The witness went on to say bat the Government had received information from various agencies to the effect that the three detenus were actively and directly associating themselves with Mirza Ibrahim in his activities prejudicial to the interests of law and order, and they were the active supporters of the cause taken up by Mirza Ibrahim, and his Union, and that they were present on a number of occasions, when meetings of the workers took place, which were addressed by Mirza Ibrahim and other leaders of the Railway workers. The witness then gave various dates, on which the detenus or some of them were present in the meetings held from the 3rd of January 1967 till the 1st of February 1967. The witness further went on to say that information received by the Government from different quarters, such as Special Branch was to the effect that the detenus were inciting the workers to violence.

10. In reply to a question by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, as to how the Governor came to be satisfied about the necessity of the detention of the present detenus, the Home Secretary said that the Governor was ‑ holding repeated conferences with the Chief Secretary and senior Government Officers of the Railway Department, Police Department, Labour Department, Home Department, and the Law Department, Army Commanders, and Director‑General, Rangers, in order to take personal stock of the situation. He had before him the infor mation furnished to him by various agencies of the Government functioning in that behalf. It was after due consideration of all these facts that the Governor ordered detention of these persons. These orders were in the first instance given orally in a conference, which was held on the 3rd of February 1967, sometimes after 3‑30 in the afternoon, when the Governor returned from Rawalpindi. The witness, however, later on submitted the minutes of the proceedings of this conference to the Governor, which he approved. In reply to a court question, the witness claimed privilege against production of these minutes on the ground that they contained discussions about the overall law and order situation in the Province and certain matters relating to the affairs of the State, publication whereof was against public interest.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised before us three points :‑ (i) That the evidence does not disclose that the detenus were about to commit any act falling within the mischief of rule 32, and on this ground the original order of detention and the subsequent orders of extension were bad in law; (ii) That the entire material available with regard to the detenus was not placed before the Governor before he passed the order of detention; (iii) That the detention was, malafide because discrimination bad been made between the Union, to which the detenus belong, and the Unions, which are led by Ch. Umar Din and Mr. M. A. Rahim, and in passing the orders of detention, the condition contained in the settlement arrived at between the Railway authorities and Mirza Ibrahim to the effect that workers, who had gone on strike will not be victimis ed, had been completely ignored.

12. The relevant portion of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, under which the orders of detention were, passed reads as under :‑ "Rule 32 of the Pakistan Defence Rules.‑The Central Government, if satisfied with respect to any particular person, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security, the public safety or interest or the Defence of Pakistan, the maintenance of public order; Pakistan's relations with any other powers, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in any part of Pakistan, the maintenance of essential supplies and services, or, the efficient conduct of military operations, or prosecution of war, it is necessary so to do, may. make an order. . . . . (b) directing that he be detained." The object of the said rule is suppressive and preventive and the authority has been given power to take action to prevent the A apprehended threat to public order, or other subjects, mentioned in rule 32, if it is satisfied that such a course of action is necessary.

13. We find in this case that the detenus were office‑bearers of the Railway Workers' Union, which is represented by Mirza Ibrahim. They were present in various meetings and according to the averments, contained in para. 5 of the writ petition, were in complete accord with all the decisions of the Union, to which they belonged. It has been alleged in the written statement that the partial strike of the 30th of January 1967, which assumed the shape of a conflagration on the next day, was sponsored by the present detenus, and there is a dim, but distinct admission to this effect in para. 5 of the writ petition, where it is stated that there was a general commotion amongst the Railway workers and when they were informed that their lawful procession was obstructed by an order of the respondent No. 2, they decided to go on a token protest strike for one hour on the 30th January 1967. 'this decision of the workers was spontaneous and was in fact the result of the discrimination with which the authorities had dealt with the different Trade Unions." It is not possible to resist the feeling, after reading the above question from the writ petition, that the detenus had something to do with the sit‑down strike, which was started on the 30th of January 1967, and which assumed colossal proportions on the very next day with the result that not only the whole system of Railway communications was paralysed in the whole of the Province, but the efforts of the Government to rush foodstuffs to deficit areas were completely frustrated. It is also not possible to get over the impression that there was rivalry between various trade Unions, and the motive behind the sit‑down strike of the 30tfi of January 1967 was to demonstrate to the authorities the extent of the hold of such Unions on the workers, which had so far not received any official recognition. The settlement with Mirza Ibrahim was arrived at on the night intervening between the 2nd and the 3rd of February 1957 and the workers were expected to return to work. On the other hand, there was outburst of violence on the morning of the 3rd of February, and the Army and Police had to be called to quell rioting and prevent arson. This outburst of violence came in the wore of the settlement that had been arrived at with Mirza Ibrahim, and the authorities, responsible for maintaining peace and order, could reasonably come to the conclusion that Mirza Ibrahim; and office‑bearers of his Union did not mean business, and were likely to indulge in prejudicial activities in order to sabotage the settlement arrived at with Ch. Umar Din and the Railway authorities.

14. The averments contained in the written statement with regard to the holding of meetings by Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim in camera and the allegations that the present detenus had facilitated the entry of the strikers in the Power‑house have not been supported by the evidence of the Home Secretary. There is, however, a clear reference in his evidence to the reports received from various agencies including the Special Branch to the effect that the present detenus, who were office‑bearers of the Railway Workers Union were inciting the labourers to strike and to commit violence. It is true that during his cross‑examination; thy Home Secretary admitted that the three detenus did not make any speech before or after the 31st of January 1967. It was, however, stated that Madar Bux was found on the 28th of January 1967 instigating the labourers to stick to their demands and also shouted in the presence of a Magistrate that "they had been left in jeopardy and they did not know, where Mirza Ibrahim had been taken away". It is also in the evidence of the above witness that in spite of section 1.44 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Madar Bux was found in a procession of workers, which was formed on the 28th of January 1967. The suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners in .the cross‑examination to the effect that actually Madar Bux had peaceful intentions and the procession had been dispersed, because of his persuasion, was denied by the Home Secretary.

15. There was no attempt during the cross‑examination of the witness to find out the nature and extent of the activities of the three detenus, alleged to have been mentioned in the reports, submitted by the various official agencies. The assertion of the Home Secretary, therefore, that reports regarding the prejudicial activities of the three detenus were received by the Government from various quarters has gone unchallenged.

16. In our opinion, it was permissible to the authorities responsible for maintaining law and order on the basis of the above data to entertain an inferential belief that the detenus, who were close associates of Mirza Ibrahim were likely to indulge in prejudicial activities.

17. The learned counsel is not on a firm ground, when he asserts that the order of detention was vitiated, because full facts were not brought to the notice of the Governor, when he directed the detention of these detenus. The learned counsel said that the facts regarding Mirza Ibrahim having arrived at a settlement with the Railway authorities and also having issued a Press statement, issued in the daily 'Pakistan Times' of the 3rd of February 1967 were not brought to the notice of the Governor, and this omission on the part of his Officers had prevented him from bringing about full application of his mind to the facts of the present case.

18. The Home Secret2ry has stated that the manuscripts of the settlement arrived at by the Railway authorities with the Unions concerned, were not placed before the Governor, but they were mentioned in the conference, which was held in the afternoon of the 3rd of February 1967 in tire Government House. It is of course not mentioned in the evidence of the Home Secretary that it was brought to the notice of the Governor that an appeal by Mirza Ibrahim had appeared in the `Pakistan Times', dated the 3rd of February 1967, calling upon the workers to resume work, but this fact has no direct bearing on the case of the present detenus and is relatable to the case of Mirza Ibrahim himself. The Governor was faced with a grave situation and had to make important decisions regarding restoration of means of communi cations and law and order among Railway workers. The settlement with Mirza Ibrahim had already failed to bring about desired results and the appeal issued by him bad no effect on the workers, because there was an outburst of violence on the same morning when the appeal was published.

19. The allegations of male fides have also not been sub stantiated. The petitioners have tried to build up a case of male fides on two grounds. Firstly, it is asserted that Ch. Umar Din, who is the Secretary of the United Union of P. W. R. Workers had also given a notice for a strike, but he being favourite of the Railway authorities was let off, and the Railway by passing the other Unions came to a compromise with Ch. Umar Din. The second basis of attack on the bona fides of the detention order is that the Railway authorities had given an undertaking to Mirza Ibrahim that there would be no victimisa tion after the strike was called off but that commitment was not honoured. We do not find any force in any of these contentions. The order of the detention was passed by the Governor and no animus has been alleged either against the Governor himself, or of any of the functionaries associated with him in the passing of the detention order. Both the acts, which according to the petitioners point to malice, are attributed to the Railway authorities and not C to the Governor, who is responsible for maintaining law and order and has to apply his own independent judgment to discharge his own responsibility with regard to the maintenance of law and order irrespective of the commitment of the Railway authorities. We also find that there was no breach of faith on the part of the Railway authorities, because the terms of the settlement were not implemented by calling off the strike.

20. No argument was addressed to us on the question of the privilege claimed by the Home Secretary with regard to the minutes of the 3rd of February 1967, and we will, therefore, D presume that the stand taken by the Home Secretary was conceded by the counsel for the petitioners,

21. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the original orders of detention in respect of the three detenus were passed with lawful authority.

22. The next question raised in this writ petition is, as to whether the latest order of extension passed on the 1st of August 1967 is justified in the circumstances of the case. The Home Secretary had to concede in answer to a question put to him in cross‑examination that the Railway Department was functioning smoothly and properly since the 9th of February 1967, and that there was no trouble and the workers had resumed their duty and no acts of damage or sabotage had been reported. He, however, mentioned that anonymous letters containing threats were received by the Railway authorities and some posters by unknown persons were also recovered from the Railway Carriage Loco‑Shops. The Home Secretary, in reply to a question, put by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, in regard to the justification of the order of extension, explained that the Govern ment had instituted a Review Board, which was presided over ‑by the Chief Secretary, for reviewing the case of various detenus from time to time. As a result of the deliberations of this Review Board, 31 detenus, out of total 39, had been released. The witness stated that it was after the Review Board had considered the situation that the orders of the extension of the terms of the detention of the present detenus was passed, The Home Secretary also placed on record certain documents, which according to him furnished the Justification for passing the impugned orders of extension. These documents have been exhibited as R. C. to R. F. Exh. R. C. is a copy of the Secret letter, dated the 9th of August 1967, from the Secretary, West Pakistan Railways Board, Lahore, to the Secretary, West Pakistan Government, Homr Department, Lahore. Exh. R. D. is a report, dated the 28th of July 1967 by Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Special Branch, west Pakistan, to the Secretary to the Governor, home Minister, and some other functionaries of the Provincial Government, including the Home Secretary. Exh. R.D/1 is a report, dated the 29th or July 1967 by the same officer, and is addressed in the same manner. Exh. R. E. is the report, dated the 1st of August 1967, by the same Officer and Exh. R. F. is a report dated the 3rd of August 1967 by the same Officer and addressed in the same manner. The Home Secretary conceded in his statement before us that the report Exh. R. C. is not relevant to the question of the order of extension, passed on the 1st of August 1967 against the present detenus. We also find that Exh. R. F. is a report, dated the 3rd of August 1967, and could not have been before the Governor, when he passed the order of detention. It is not clear, whether the report, dated the 1st of August 1967, Exh. R. F. was before the Governor, when he passed the order of extension on the Ist of August 1967. In any case, none of these reports contains any facts, which may cause apprehension about the future activities of the present detenus. In Exh. R. D. dated the 28th of July 1967, vie find the p4mes of these detenus, but the only mention that is made with Respect to them is to the effect that some of tie workers gathered during the recess period on the 26th of July 1967 and were heard to say that tae labourers including the present detenus, who had fought for the cause of labour had been sent to jail, but the Government and the Railway administration had not acceded to any demand, and had given there nothing. Exh. R. D. also shows that Mirza Ibrahim had allegedly during the hearing of his writ petition in the High Court told some of his workers to hold meeting and repeat their demands for the supply of cheap rations and increase in their dearness allowance and grant of Rs. 150 as minimum pay. Exh. R. D./1 relates to P. W. R. Union, SF itch is led by Sh Abdul Ghafoor and has nothing to do with the. present detenus. In Exh. R. E. it is mentioned that on the 31st of July 1967, about 3(3 to 35 Railway workers gathered in the Railway Moghalpura Workshop during the recess, tune and commented upon the plight of tile Railway workers. These workers were of the opinion. that in case, section 144 was not imposed, Mirza Ibrahim Mould be taken in a procession to the Carriage Workshop .after his expected release from the High Court. A statement is attributed to one Balk‑at Ali, a Railway worker That after the release of Mirza Ibrahim and others, the Railway workers would get hold of the Railway adminis tration by the neck and forcibly get the acceptance of their demands regarding to the opening of cheap ration shops, etc, In the same meeting, a suggestion came from Raja Noor Ahmad, another worker, that they should secretly make propaganda in respect of the workers, who had been detained, and urge their co‑workers to devote liberally for the families of the detained persons on the pay day. These reports depict in general a sense of acute dissatisfaction prevailing among the Railway workers on account of reduction in the quota of Atta and the mixture of maize, which according to the report, Exh. R. D. is considered unwholesome and unfit for human consumption bay the workers. These reports also show that the Railway workers felt frustrated, because of the failure of the Railway authorities to meet their demands regarding cheap ration. We find that this state of affairs was brought to the notice of the Governor by the Railway Board by their letter, dated the 1st of August 1967, and the Governor bad passed an order on the 3rd of August 1967, which forms an Annexure to Exh. R. C. In this order, the Governor had directed that the management‑labour relationship must be improved and legitimate grievances of the labourers should be removed to the extent possible.

23. Now if the basis of the extension order are the reports, referred to above, as stated by tile Home Secretary, we are clear in our mind that they do not indicate that the detenus, if released, are likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to public order. The mere mention of the fact by one of their colleagues that they had been detained, only indicates that their comrades still remember them, but in no way shows that the detenus are in communication with their comrades outside, or they had any intention to indulge in prejudicial activities. The grounds for satisfaction of the detaining authority should be directly relatable to art act of commission or omission on tile part of the detenu. The liberty of a person cannot be kept in jeopardy, because of the, opinions expressed by some other persons, who are not proved to have any liaison with the detenus.

24. The learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that the good faith of the Government was proved by the fact that in spite of the widespread strike, which was attended by acts of violence, the Government had detained only 39 persons out of which 31 had been released. He argued that although the formation of the Board of Review was not a requirement of law, the Government had done so and this shows their anxiety to deal with the cases of the detenus in a fair manner. These submissions, as they stand, are unexceptionable, and we have no doubt as to bona fides of the Government in this matter. The presumption that the Executive Authority formed its opinion in a responsible manner does not detract from the power of the Superior Courts to examine the question, whether in reality the Executive Authority was satisfied about the necessity of the passing of an order of extension of detention. There should be in existence some factual basis for the imposition of further restrictions on the liberty of a citizen who is already detained and a heavy duty is cast on this Court to see that a citizen is deprived of his freedom only on reasonable grounds.

25. Dealing with a similar argument in the case of Saiyyid Abul Ala Maudoodi v. The Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1964 S C 673) the Chief Justice of Pakistan observed as follows:-- "Any presumption that the authority in question has acted in accordance with justice or reason or equity, if made by the Courts in respect of such actions would, amount to a denial of the duty, which the Courts are called‑ upon to discharge in respect of these fundamental matters. The duty of the Courts would be thus to apply the principles of reason and justice according to the procedures with which they are familiar, to the ascertainment of the questions, whether the restrictions in themselves are consistent with justice and reason, whether the conditions for their application have in fact been established, and whether they have been applied by competent authority. These are matters falling within the large principle of judicial review as a power possessed by the Courts, for the correction of excesses in action." In the ease of Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi v. The Crown (P L D 1952 Lah. 331) the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court observed :‑ "Repeated orders of detention without giving to the man concerned an opportunity to desist from his activities may in certain cases be taken to be vindictive dishonest or punitive and not preventive. And where such view can fairly be taken, High Court will hold the order invalid and set detenu at liberty." It was further observed :‑-- "The presumption with which such acts of Government are received in Courts is permissive and no Court is bound to presume that though a man had been in incarceration for 18 months, Government still honestly believed that, if released, he would act in precisely the same manner as he did or intended to do when he was first arrested." In the case of Mst. Nasim Fatima v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1967 Lah. 103) the Full Bench held that :‑‑- "though it is possible for the detaining authority to pass an order of detention against a person, who is already under detention, a fresh order of detention is not to be made mechanically or automatically and the authority must be honestly satisfied, on full realisation of its responsibility in depriving a citizen of his liberty, whether his further detention is necessary purely for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a pre judical manner." Their Lordships quoted with approval the observations of Muhammad Munir, C. J. in the case of Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, referred to above. Reference was also made to the case Sibte Hassan v. Crown (P L D 1954 Lah. 142) wherein it was held that the detenu should be afforded locus paenitentiae.

26. We have seriously considered the oral evidence of the Home Secretary in regard to the question of the extension of the detention and the documents, Exh. R. D. to R. F. produced by him in this connection. We do not find that there is any factual basis for the satisfaction expressed in the impugned orders of extension with regard to the apprehended activities of the detenus. They, have been not in detention for about seven months and the Government have not been able to disclose to the Court that the detenus intend to carry on their activities, in order to prevent which, the original order of detention was made. It is possible that the authorities concerned still believe that the release of these detenus will not be in the interest of public order, but that belief, in order to inspire satisfaction, as contem plated by law, has to be based on certain tangible facts. There should be some foundation for inferential or actual belief with regard to the further conduct of the detenu.

27. We, therefore, hold that the orders of extension, dated 1st of August 1967 passed in respect of the three detenus are of no legal effect and are without lawful authority.

28. We now come to the case of Mr. Fazal Elahi Qarban. He was ordered to be detained for a period of two months do the 2nd of February 1967 with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order. The Home Secretary also appeared as a witness in that case, and the detenu also offered himself as a witness The main argument addressed to us by Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original order, having been passed without lawful authority, the order of extension of the period of detention was also vitiated on that ground. The Home Secretary was not in a position to contradict the suggestion that Fazal Elahi Qurban does not belong to any of the four Unions of the Railway Workers, referred to earlier in this judgment, and which figured conspicuously before and during the events that took place between the 30th of January and the 3rd of February 191;7.

30. The case of the Government against Fazal Elahi Qurban, as stated in the written statement, is that the petitioner is an associate of Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, who was responsible for aggravating the situation. He is stated to be one of the brains behind P. W. R. Union, which is headed by Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, who mostly draws his inspiration from him in preparing and carrying out his plans for creating mass unrest and discontent ment. It was alleged in para. 5 of the written statement that the petitioner participated actively in aggravating the situation and in fact moved about in the Railway premises and made man‑to- man contact with workers and instigated them against the Railway administration and the Government. He turned down the request of the Government to pacify the workers and don the contrary created hatred against the Government.

31. The Home Secretary, in his evidence before us, did not support this latter allegation of man‑to‑man contact for purposes of instigation and the petitioner's refusal to assist the Government in pacifying the workers. The Home Secretary stated that the Governor had ordered the detention of Fazal Elahi Qurban on the basis of various official reports that were brought to his notice and the oral information given to him by the high ranking Officers in a meeting. It was also stated by the Home Secretary that the orders of extension of the term of petitioner's detention were passed after due consideration by the Review Board and then by the Governor. The Home Secretary explained that the detenus, who were considered to have become innocuous were released, but those, with regard to whom there was a feeling that they were likely to incite workers to trouble, or to exploit the sim mering discontent among the workers were retained in detention. The witness stated in answer to a court question that he had no reports to produce before the Court with regard to the justifica tion of the extension of the detention of Fazal Elahi Qurban. He, however, made a candid admission that actually he had not received any specific reports about Fazal Elahi Qurban, and further stated that the original detention of Fazal Elahi Qurban was ordered due to the fact that he was regarded by the Govern. ment as the brain behind the activities of Mirza Ibrahim and Sh. Abdul Ghafoor and their followers. When asked whether he would like to place on record the information that he had received from different quarters on the basis whereof, the original detention of Fazal Elahi Qurban was ordered, the witness expressed his inability to do so on the ground that the case of Fazal Elahi Qurban was not separable from the case of other detenus and he had claimed privilege with regard to these reports before another Bench during the hearing of the case of Mirza Ibrahim and others. In reply to a further Court question, he stated that he had no other reports about Fazal Elahi Qurban in addition to those, about which he had claimed privilege. He further stated that the name of Fazal Elahi Qurban was mentioned in the documents, Exh. R. D. to R. F. that he had placed before the Court a day earlier.

32. The detenu in his statement has made a categorical statement that he had nothing to do with the four Unions of the Railway workers, which figured before and during the strike which started on the 30th of January. He, however admitted that the P. W. R. Workers' Union, which is led by Sh. Abdul ..Ghafoor is affiliated with Pakistan Mazdoor Federation of which the detenu is the General Secretary. According to the narration .of events, given by the petitioner, a car belonging to the Labour Department of the Provincial Government was sent to him by the Labour Department on the 1st of February 1967, in which he was taken to Raja Iftikharullah, Director, Labour Department. Mubarik Hussain Siddiqui, Conciliation Officer was also sitting with Raja Iftikharullah at that time. He suggested to these two Officers to invite different Railway workers to a round‑table Conference, where the difficulties of the Government on the one hand, and the problems of the workers on the other could be ventilated, and an agreed formula for the solution of the problems of both the parties could be evolved. He also stated that he informed these two Officers that he did not belong to any of the unions figuring in the dispute, yet his services were, at their disposal for resolving the difficulties, because he was an old labour worker, and "they were all patriotic people and wanted the troubles to be settled." Raja Iftikharullab advised him to meet the Secretary of the Labour Department, namely, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, C. S. P. and the Conciliation Officer took him in a Government car to Mogbalpura Railway Work shops. He was unable to meet the Secretary, Labour Depart ment, but sent a chit to him containing a signed note that a round‑table Conference of all the leaders of the Railway Workers Unions, should be called so that the problems, which had arisen, could be solved. On the evening of the 1st of February, the petitioner was again sent for by Mr. Allah Yar Khan, Minister for Labour. Since the Minister was away from his bungalow the petitioner was waited till 2‑30 p. m., when the Minister came accompanied by the Secretary of the Labour Department and again some brief discussion ensued between the petitioner, the Minister, and the Labour Secretary. He was sent back in a Government car and on the 2nd of February at about 8 a. m., a Government car again fetched him and took him to Raja iftikharullah. The said Officer in turn took him to the Secretary, Labour Department, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Bajwa, and a meeting which was also attended by the Additional Labour Director, Mr. Mahmud, lasted for 11 hours. The Secretary told the petitioner that he would consider his suggestion of a round‑table Conference. The petitioner was arrested on the night between the 2nd and the 3rd of February 1967 at about 2‑30 a. m. He made grievance of the fact that he was not informed of the grounds of detention and that he and the other detenus had not received the allowance prescribed by the rules in spite of reminders to the jail authorities. The Deputy Superin tendent of Jail was examined on this aspect of the case, and it transpired that no allowance, as prescribed under the law, had been paid to the detenus.

33. After an analysis of the oral evidence produced before us, we are of the opinion that there was no tangible evidence before the Governor, when he passed the original order of" detention against Fazal Elahi Qurban to ensure satisfaction that such a step was necessary. The Home Secretary has not alleged that Fazal Elahi Qurban was found on any Railway premises, but while giving evidence in Writ Petition No. 457/67, he did state that Fazal Elahi Qurban was present on the 1st of February near Moghalpura Workshop. The detenu has given an explanation for his presence on that date to the effect that he was taken to that place on the direction of Raja Iftikharullah by the Conctlia‑ tion Officer in order to see the Labour Secretary and after having, failed in this object, he was sent back to his home in a Government transport. There is no rebuttal of this evidence, nor is there anything in the cross‑examination of the petitioner to show that his assertion was incorrect. When a question was, put to the Home Secretary that the detenu had been called by the Commissioner and then by the Minister on the 1st of February 1967, he was not in a position to contradict the suggestion. It is also in the evidence of Fazal Elahi Qurban and this fact has not been challenged in any way by the Government that Sh. Abdul Ghafoor had left Lahore for Karachi about a. week earlier than the 31st of January 1967. The Home Secretary was not able to point out any overt act on the part of the detenu, which may prove his liaison in any way with Mirza Ibrahim or Sh. Abdul Ghafoor. It has not been pointed out, as to what precise allegations were contained in the reports, which allegedly were received by the Government through various quarters about Fazat, Elahi Qurban. If there were any precise allegations against Fazal Elahi Qurban, the Home Secretary must have mentioned them, as he has done in the case of three detenus in the other case. On the other hand, he has admitted in a reply to a court question, that he had not received any specific reports about Fazal Elahi, Qurban, and his original detention was ordered due to the reason that he was regarded by the Government as the brain behind the activities of Mirza Ibrahim, Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, and their followers. We can, therefore, legitimately draw an inference: from the evidence before us that there was no specific information about the likelihood of any activities by Fazal Elahi Qurban, which could have been said to be directed against public order. The mere suspicion that he was a brain behind Mirza Ibrahim and Sh. Abdul Ghafoor cannot take the place of satisfaction, which is a process of formation of opinion based on some reasons. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case Malik Ghulam, Jillani v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD1967SC373) that the satisfaction of the detaining authority, acting under rule 32 must be a state of mind, which has been induced by the existence of reasonable grounds for such satisfaction. Mere expression of satisfaction. will not meet the requirement of the law. In the same report, we find the following observations at page 394 :‑-- "The terms in which rule 32 is worded clearly imply the exercise of volition, an operation involving several mental faculties. The requirement of satisfaction contained in rule 32 involves the exercise of judgment in relation to a number of relevant factors. Belief would be necessary as to the existence of certain facts and the potentiality they possess of danger to public order and thereafter upon an appreciation of all the surrounding circumstances, there would require to be made an estimate as to the extent of action needed to prevent the apprehended eventualities."

34. At best, the allegation of the Government against the petitioner is that he was a brain behind Mirza Ibrahim and Sh. Abdul Ghafoor, but no facts have been brought on record to sustain that conclusion. On a proper analysis of the evidence, we cannot, but hold that there were no grounds before the Governor, when he originally directed the detention of the petitioner, which could reasonably lead to the formation of a belief that he was likely to commit acts prejudicial to public order.

35. It is now established that if the original order of detention is vitiated, the orders of extension also fall through. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Abdul Wali Khan v. Crown (PLD 1954 FC 1) and Masum v. State (P L D 1961 Pesh. 102). The assertion of the Home Secretary that the name of Fazal Elahi Qurban was also mentioned in the reports Exh. R. C. to R. F. placed on the file of the Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 is not factually correct. In none of these reports, the name of Fazal Elahi Qurban has been mentioned. The order of extension is, therefore, vitiated, firstly because of the fact that the original order of deten tion was passed on an assumption which was not supported by any factual basis, and secondly, the assertion of the Home Secretary that Fazal Elahi Qurban's name was mentioned in the reports, placed before this Court, and which according to him formed the basis of the order of extension, has not been proved to be correct.

36. Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri, Advocate, also argued that. the order of extension had been served in the afternoon of the 1st of August 1967, whereas the period of detention expired on the 31st of July 1967. There was thus a gap of time for a few hours and since the period of detention had already expired before the service of the notice, the order of extension was bad and ineffective. He also asserted that non‑payment of the allowance to the detenu rendered the orders of detention illegal and ineffective. We need not give any detailed opinion with regard to these contentions in view of the fact that we have arrived at the conclusion that the original order of the detention of Fazal Elahi Qurban was vitiated on other grounds. We are, however, inclined to think that none of these contentions raised by the learned counsel can be permitted to prevail. As to the first proposition, the learned counsel was not able to cite any authority that the order of detention got its validity from the time service on the detenu. He referred to the case of Abdul Wall Khan v. Crown in support of his proposition. This case is clearly distinguishable, because the extension order in this case was passed after the period of the detention of the detenu had already expired. The present order of extension was passed on the 31st of July 1967 admittedly before the expiry of the) order of detention and there was no time lag in this case.

37. We also do not think that the non‑payment of allowance has vitiated the order of detention. The allowance was to be paid by the jail authorities after sending the bill for pre‑audit to the Accountant‑General. We find from the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Jail that the Accountant‑General had raised certain objections to these bills, which were forwarded by the jail authorities to the Home Secretary of the Provincial Government. The matter could not be finalised on account of Departmental delays. The failure of the jail authorities, or the Accountant‑General, to make payment to the detenus of the described allowance does not render the order of detention invalid for the simple reason that the order of detention was passed by the Governor on considerations given in rule 32, and the subsequent failure of his subordinates to pay the allowance to the detenu may call for Departmental action, if the facts of the case so warrant, but certainly it does not affect the validity of the order.

38. Mr. Mahmud Ali did not seriously argue that the privilege claimed by the Home Secretary, in respect of the reports, regarding the three other detenus, in which according to the witness, the name of Fazal Elahi Qurban was also mentioned, was not justified. The judgment of the Bench before whom the plea of privilege had been raised, had been announced by the time the arguments were addressed to us, and the plea of privilege was upheld by that Bench. The counsel submitted that in view of the date of law, as it existed, he would not like to make an attempt to persuade us to hold differently. Since another Bench of this Court has admitted the plea of privilege, with regard to these reports, and in view of the statement of law as contained in Ghulam Ali v. Abdul Hafiz (P L D 1962 Lah. 765) and repeated in the case of Mst. Nasim Fatima v. Government of West Pakistan we are not at present in a position to come to a different finding. Moreover any further discussion, on this subject, is rendered) academic, because our findings in this case have proceeded on different grounds and nothing actually hangs on the acceptance or rejection of the plea of privilege.

39. In view of the above discussion, we hold that, while the original orders of detention, in case of the three detenus, in Writ Petition No. 457 of 1967 were passed with lawful authority there was no factual basis for passing the orders of extension, dated the 1st of August 1967, in respect of the above detenus, and we direct that the said detenus, namely, Ghulam Hussain son of Abdul Rahim, Abdul Khaliq son of Allah Noor, and Madar Bakhsh son of Hasan Khan, be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are lawfully required to be detained in some other case. Writ Petition No. 457 is accepted to this extent only. The parties will bear their own costs.

40. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2920 of 1967 is also allowed and it is directed that detenu, Fazal Elahi Qurban, be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is lawfully required to be detained in some other case. A.H. Order accordingly.