1977 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, C. J.‑

By these two petitions under section 491, Cr. P. C., the petitioner Muhammad Hussain bas challenged the two order of the detention, both dated 18th November 1975, passed against Haji Siddiq son of Haji Ali and Muhammad Siddiq son of Haji Ali. The main submis sion made at the Bar by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh is that the impugned order having been passed against the mandatory requirements of subsection (6) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 are without lawful authority. This provision of law read as follows: - "(6) Where a detention order has been made under this section the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made, inform him that be is at liberty to make a representation to Government against the order and afford him the earliest opportunity of doing so Provided that the authority making any such order may refuse to dis close facts which such authority considers it to be against public interest." The grounds of detention were furnished to' the petitioner on 2nd December 1975, i.e. on the 15th day of the orders of detention. This is a maximum time prescribed by the Constitution of Pakistan under its Article

10. The requirement in this imposed by the Ordinance, however, is that the detaining authority shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds upon which the order of detention is passed against him. No explana tion whatever has been given by the respondents as to the reasons that prevented the detaining authority from complying with this requirement of law on any date earlier than the 2nd December 1975. In Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sind (P L D 1973 Kar. 694) this Court following the decision in Ghulam Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate, Campbellpur (P L D 1967 Pesh. 195) held that the delay of 15 days in serving the grounds of detention on the destenu is infringement of the statutory require ment contained in subsection (6) of section '3 of the Ordinance and thus renders the very detention invalid. Realising the force of these decisions, the learned Advocate‑General frankly conceded that he is not in a position to support the orders of detention passed against the detenus. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that tile detenus not halving been dealt with in accordance with law, are entitled to be set at liberty. We accordingly allow both these petitions, and direct that the two detenus shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in some other connection. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.