P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

H. T. Raymond for Respondent. INAMULLAH, J.‑The present petition is directed against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Karachi on April 21, 1955, whereby he externed petitioner from Karachi for the period of one year under clause (c) subsection (1) of section 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952. The petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued calling upon the respondent, Chief Commissioner of Karachi, to refrain from enforcing the order of externment passed against the petitioner. The relevant facts, as disclosed in the petition, are these :‑ The petitioner migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and was employed as Inspector of Police at Karachi till December 30, 1952, when his services were dispensed with by the Inspector‑General of Police, Karachi. The petitioner filed a suit in the Chief Court of Sind for a declaration that the order passed by the Inspector‑General of Police was illegal. The suit was decreed, but in appeal, however, it was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application before the Federal Court of Pakistan for special leave to appeal, which the Federal Court has been pleased to grant. It is alleged in the petition that, after the dismissal of the petitioner from service, certain anonymous applica tions were sent against the Inspector‑General of Police and other police officials. On inquiry it appeared that one Maqsood Ahmed was the author of those applications. On further inquiry by the police, number of police officials were found to be in conspiracy with Maqsood Ahmed, and the petitioner was also found to be one of them. The Chief Commissioner of Karachi on April 9, 1955, ordered that Maqsood Ahmed should be externed under section 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act 1952. A similar order was passed on April 21, 1955, against the petitioner externing him from Karachi for period of one year. In the petition the order of externment is challenged on the ground that even if the petitioner were found to be in conspiracy with Maqsood Ahmed in making allegations against the Inspector‑General of Police, this could not be a legal ground for holding that the petitioner had committed any act which can be said to be " prejudicial to the main tenance of public order ". It was further urged in the petition that the order of externment must specify the acts which are attributed to the petitioner, and which can be held to be acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A counter‑affidavit has been filed by Mr. G. Rashid, Secre tary to the Chief Commissioner of Karachi. He has stated in the counter‑affidavit that as Secretary to the Chief Commissioner he deals with law and order, and that the externment order was passed not only on the ground that the activities of the petitioner were against the highly placed police officers but also on grounds that the activities of the petitioner were " prejudicial to the maintenance of public order ". Mr. Tufail Ali, the learned advocate for the petitioner has made his submissions on the assumption that the satisfaction of the authority passing an order of ex ternment cannot be looked into. He, however, con tended that, where the ground for externment is mentioned, or is admitted by the authority passing the order and the ground is not prejudicial to " the maintenance of public order ", the Court can grant the writ as prayed for. On the counter‑affidavit filed by Mr. G. Rashid on behalf of the respondent, it would appear that the petitioner was externed not only on the ground of his activities being against the high officers, but also on other grounds. Mr. Tufail Ali, the learned advocate for the petitioner, there fore, contended that where the grounds disclosed contained grounds some within the ambit of the Act and some outside it, the order of externment would be wholly vitiated as it would be impossible to say which of the grounds influenced the authority concerned in ordering the externment of the petitioner. This was the only point urged by Mr. Tufail Ali before us. Mr. Tufail Ali, the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a number of decisions in support of his con tention that, where the ground disclosed contained grounds some within the scope of the Act and some outside it, the order of externment was wholly vitiated as it was not possible to hold which of the grounds influenced the authority concerned in passing the order. He relied on A I R (35) 1948 Bom. 334, in re. Rajdhar Kalu Patel (A I R 1954 S C 179), Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (A I R (30) 1943 F C 1), Keshan Talpade v. Emperor (A I R 1950 Mad. 162). Mr. Tufail Ali, the learned advocate for the petitioner has candidly brought to out notice the case of Abdul Latif Afghan? (P L D 1951 Lah. 17). This case was disposed of by Munir C. J., and Muhammad Sharif J. The proposition enunciated above was doubted in this order, and Munir C. J., while delivering the order and considering the proposition mentioned above, observed :‑ " I am doubtful of the correctness of this rule which appears to me to have been stated somewhat too broadly. The logical result of the rule, if it were applied in the unqualified manner suggested in the two cases cited above, would be that, if among ten reasons for the arrest of a person who was believed to be acting in a manner pre judicial to public safety was an insignificant reason that in addition to the other acts which were calculated to prejudice public safety, he was also engaged in an activity not within the power of the Provincial Government to prevent, the order of arrest will have to be held to be wholly unsustainable. Any such result in my opinion has to be avoided, because otherwise, the High Court while hearing a habeas corpus petition would in such a case be substituting its own judgment for the judgment of the arresting authority in holding that the remaining nine reasons any one of which could have been a good reason for the arrest were not, individually, or collectively in fact the reasons on which he could have been arrested, and thus that Court would be taking upon itself a responsibility which under the Statute rests on and vests in some other authority ". We would respectfully adopt the observations of Munir C. J. It may also be mentioned that the Chief Commissioner while passing the order of externment under Security of Pakistan Act of 1952 is not bound to disclose the grounds. Mr. Tufail Ali has not urged any other ground in support of the petition where a writ in the nature of mandamus would have been issued to the respondent. We do not think there has been any disregard of the provisions of the Security of Pakistan Act XXXV of 1952. We would, for the reasons given above, dismiss the petition. A. H. Petition dismissed.