2016 P Cr (PLP)

QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.

Since identical questions have been raised, this single order in the instant writ petition shall also dispose of the writ petitions mentioned herein below:-

1. Shabbir v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.961-A/2015).

2. Tauseef v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.966-A/2015).

3. Waseem Abbas v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.967-A/2015).

4. Syed Hassan v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.968-A/2015).

5. Muhammad Banaras v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.969-A/2015).

6. Anwar Khan v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc. (WP No.972-A/2015).

7. Liaqat Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.980-A/2015).

8. Sheraz Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Haripur (WP No.981-A/2015).

2. In all the nine writ petitions, the petitioners have impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Haripur, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, (MPO), 1960, whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be detained in Central Prison, Haripur, for a period of 30 days from the date of arrest, on the ground of indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order in Haripur District, in the light of report of the local police.

3. Since the petitioners were being deprived of their fundamental right of liberty, the writ petitions were taken up on priority basis, and the learned Additional Advocate General was put on notice, who accepted the notice, but could produce the police report, forming basis for impugned order against the petitioner in the instant writ petition, showing his involvement in two criminal cases, one under section 13, A.O, which ended in his sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.500/-, and the other under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., which was still pending.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, had no answer when confronted with the question, that would it not amount to subjecting a person to double jeopardy by detaining him in the prison under section 3 MPO when he was already either convicted or facing criminal charge. The stereotype reckless and ruthless detention orders simply on the basis of report of local police, without any complaint from the general public or material showing threat to the public order and safety emanating from the petitioners, speak volumes about the bureaucratic apathy and scant regard for law and the Constitution by the Executive Head of the District. The frequent resort to preventive detention under section 3 MPO is nothing more than a futile attempt on the part of the District Administration to create a perception, rather misperception, about maintenance of peace and order in the District and thereby absolve the law enforcing agencies of their primary duty of providing protection to the life and liberty of the citizens, instead of causing harassment through such like uncalled for so-called security measures.

5. Consequently, all the impugned orders of the same date i.e. 21.09.2015 are not sustainable, besides being arbitrary, perverse, capricious, illegal and in clear disregard of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by the Constitution. Resultantly, the writ petitions are accepted and the impugned orders under section 3, MPO are set aside, with direction that the petitioners be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in other case. SL/404/P Petitions allowed.