2003 PLP 1460 (YLR)

2. The brief facts of the case are that initially the abovesaid suspect was detained for a period of thirty (30) days vide order dated 15‑8‑2002 passed by the S.S.P., Quetta under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 as amended by Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 2002 on the following grounds:‑‑ "(1) He is involved in the activities likely to cause fear to general public. (2) He is creating law and order problem for the Administration. (3) He is involved in terrorist activities. (4) He is providing shelter to the criminals involved in heinous crime." And; subsequently vide order impugned herein passed by the respondent No.1 referred to hereinabove his detention period was extended for a period of thirty (30) days with effect from 14‑9‑2002.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional A.‑G. have been heard at length. Also, D.S.P., Crime Branch (Chaudhry Muhammad Sharif) made his submissions. Syed Ayaz Zahoor contended that since the grounds of detentions were not communicated to the detainee, as provided by law, therefore, his detention is illegal, void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect, accordingly; the detainee is liable to be set at liberty. He further contended that in case the detainee is required in connection with the commission of any offence and such offence, if any; being an individual act does not attract the provisions of section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 nor detainee for such reason can be lawfully detained under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance in exercise of the authority vesting in the respondent No.1 i.e. Government of Balochistan under the law, hence; the detention order impugned herein is liable to be struck down and the detenue be set at liberty, however; the learned counsel further submitted that in case the detainee is wanted in connection with any other criminal case he can be proceeded and to be put on trial and for such reasons he cannot be legally detained under any provisions of the said Ordinance.

4. On the other hand, controverting the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional A.‑G. vehemently argued that since the detainee on credible information received through the various sources including concerned Governmental Agencies and the material produced before it was satisfied that there is every likelihood on account of the activities of the detenue that the same will result in disturbing the peace and tranquillity in the area as well as the public order will seriously be disturbed, therefore, the impugned order was competently and in accordance with law was passed by the respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers vesting in such Authority under section 3 of the Ordinance. According to the learned Additional A.‑G. disclosure of the material in open Court in the light whereof the impugned detention order was passed is likely to seriously prejudice the public as well as the interest of the State, however; he submitted that the same can be placed for perusal of the Court for its satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds for the satisfaction of the Authority to pass the detention order, as the detenue indulged in the activities prejudicial to public order and furthermore; he was also involved in anti‑State activities and was reportedly having some underworld connections with the alien country including terrorist activities in addition to his reported involvement in various cases relating to abductions of wealthy people of minorities for ransom etc.

5. The D.S.P., Crime Branch claimed privilege in respect of the documents and the material, as disclosure thereof is likely to seriously affect the interest of the State and public at large, therefore, keeping in view the submissions trade by the learned Additional A.‑G. and the D.S.P., Crime Branch, the material/documents brought by him intended to be produced, have been declared to be classified and privileged documents, accordingly; the D.S.P. Crime Branch, provided the same to the Court for perusal and examination for coming to a just conclusion with regard to the legality and justification of the impugned order or otherwise. He further submitted that the grounds of detention were duly communicated to the detainee and the same were duly received by the detainee under his signature, however; such document was not already available with the Additional A.‑G. or the D.S.P., as according to him the same was sent to the Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Home Department. He was directed to place a copy of the same on record. After a short while photostat copy of the above mentioned detention orders were placed on record, which prima facie indicate that both the detention orders i.e. issued on 15‑8‑2002 and 14‑9‑2002 were received by the detainee under his signature.

6. The contentions put forth on behalf of the parties have been considered in the light of the relevant provisions of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the MPO) including the impugned detention order as well as the one earlier passed by the respondent, No.2 on 15‑8‑2002. The documents, produced by the D. S. P. Crime Branch including the report prepared by the S.H.O./Police Station Crime Branch, Quetta on the basis of these documents and reports submitted by various Governmental Agencies have been minutely and carefully perused, which pertain to the period from 30th March, 2002 onwards. Some of the secret reports of the Governmental Agencies indicate that detainee has close connections with the Counsel General of an alien country, outside 4 the Pakistan and is involved in anti‑State activities containing certain references as regards such activities, besides his reported involvement in gunrunning, narcotics trafficking etc. and of his reported involvement in heinous crimes including abductions of certain wealthy persons of different minorities groups for huge ransom etc. Also, as per classified material/documents, in respect whereof privilege hat been claimed and granted, indicate that his mother and some other family members are also involved in such‑.like activities, residing in a neighbouring country. Moreover from such material it also appears that he has been involved reportedly in passing on certain informations secretly outside the country prejudicial to the interest of country. In view of available material it appears that hectic efforts were put in by various agencies to apprehend the detainee, who ultimately was apprehended and arrested on the night between 14/15th August, 2002 and detained for a period of thirty (30) days vide detention order dated 15‑8‑2002 passed by the respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers vesting in him under section 3 of the MPO, 1960 as amended, and subsequently the impugned detention order was passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Government of Balochistan after its satisfaction that with a view for preventing the suspect from acting in a. manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order in Balochistan it was necessary to detain the suspect namely Abdul Khaliq son of Ghulam Nabi for a further period of thirty (30) days with effect from 14‑9‑2002 on the grounds mentioned in the order, which was communicated to the detainee in token whereof he inscribed his signature on the office copy of the order, photo copy whereof has been placed on record, hence; the contention put forth by the learned counsel that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detainee is without any substance. In our considered view the documents and the material, provided to us in the public interest, has not been made available to the petitioner's learned counsel furnished sufficient and reasonable basis for the satisfaction on conscious application of mind by the Authority to have passed the impugned detention order as the reported activities appear to be prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order, which if not disrupted were likely to disturb the public peace and tranquillity and the same also appear to be prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order. It may further be observed that undoubtedly the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds of detention is not justiciable, yet; there must be some basis for the authority to form an opinion of its objective satisfaction as to the acts or activities of any person or class of persons likely to affect or prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order, which in the instant case is not lacking. Certain instances and activities have been quoted in the classified documents, produced for perusal of the Court, but in the interest of public order, we have deliberately avoided to mention and refer about the quoted activities of the detainee, as the same may likely adversely affect public and State interest, however; as hereinabove noted the competent Authority i.e. respondent No.1 within ligitimate exercise of powers vesting in it with an objective approach and diligent application of mind appears to have passed the impugned detention order, which thus; does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The classified material provided to the Court has been returned to the D.S.P., Crime Branch. Thus, in view of the above reasons this Constitutional petition being devoid of any substance, is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.B.A./157/Q Petition dismissed.