Detention

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction was to see whether any material existed before Deputy Commissioner while making orders of detention of petitioners/detenus

Action against petitioners was initiated under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Orders of detention lacked essential attributes envisaged by S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court

High Court set aside orders issued by Deputy Commissioners, as the same were not sustainable in the eyes of law and petitioners were released forthwith on furnishing bail bonds

High Court directed the petitioners to submit undertakings they would not involve themselves in any anti-state activities and acts prejudicial to public safety in any manner

High Court directed that the District Administration/ Provincial Government would be at liberty to initiate proceedings and pass appropriate orders under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against petitioners when it was satisfied that there was sufficient material against any of the petitioner relating to any of their activity prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order and their arrest/detention was necessary for maintaining public safety and public order

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed detention of her father under S. 3(1) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, by the authorities

Plea raised by authorities was that petitioner had an alternate remedy available

Validity

Representation under S. 3(6) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was an alternate remedy but in view of the process involved therein, it in no manner could be termed as efficacious in nature, so as to oust Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Order of detention of father of petitioner did not fit into statutory requirement of S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

High Court set aside the order of detention and detenu was ordered to be released forthwith

High Court observed that in case of any apprehension of future involvement of detenue in activity prejudicial to public safety, the same could be plugged by getting a bond under S. 3(9) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 [as amended by Punjab Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance 2017] from the detenue

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed detention of his uncle under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, by the authorities

Validity

Order under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, could not be based on conjectures and surmises and was to be based on concrete and tangible evidence

Grounds on the basis of which detention of a person was issued must be supported by sufficient and cogent material of the nature as would satisfy an ordinary prudent person to justify issuance of an order of preventive detention

It was only where there was sufficient and cogent material against a person that issuance of a preventive detention order could be justified

This was essential prerequisite for issuing an order under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, and the same was lacking against the detenue in the present case

High Court directed the authorities to release the detenue as preventive detention order against him was unlawful, issued without application of independent mind and resultantly the same was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Lawful imported / cleared consignments after payment of leviable duty and taxes on the strength of assessment order passed by authorities under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969 and R.438 of Customs Rules, 2001, cannot be detained under any pretext by any officer of customs

Customs authorities are only authorized to take action for issuance of detention notice in terms of S.202 of Customs Act, 1969, once amount alleged to have been evaded has been finally adjudicated and decided against the person

Procedure and mechanism provided in S.202 of Customs Act, 1969, is entirely independent of any action taken in terms of S.186 of Customs Act, 1969.

Detention of any citizen tantamount to violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Arts. 2-A, 3, 4, 9, 14 & 18 of the Constitution

Object of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is to ease public and ensure public safety, public interest and maintenance of public order

Applicability of provisions of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is subject to guarantees provided by the Constitution.

Detention of detenu was violative of principle of fair trial as enshrined in Art. 10-A of the Constitution and detention, prima facie, was double jeopardy

High Court set aside order of detention passed by authorities as there was no evidence collected and detention under S. 3 of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was not justifiable

High Court ordered release of detenu as order passed by authorities was illegal, without lawful justification and ineffective upon rights of detenu

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was ordered to be detained for 30 days on the grounds of prejudicial to public order, safety, tranquility, constant threat to law and order of the area by indulging in activities to diffuse writ of government

Validity

Grounds on the basis of which detention order of a person could be passed/issued, if had support of sufficient cogent material, would only then satisfy issuance of preventive order

Material/evidence must be of such a nature and character to persuade and satisfy and ordinary prudent person to justify order of preventive detention

Deputy Commissioner, in the present case had not applied his independent mind to alleged material produced before him rather he had mechanically issued order in question on a letter

Such order was untenable under law

Letter in question as well as preventive detention order were violative of Art. 9 of the Constitution

High Court set aside preventive detention order passed by Deputy Commissioner as it was illegal, unlawful and without application of an independent mind

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was taken into custody and detained by authorities under S. 11-EEEE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as he was member of a proscribed organization

Validity

Conclusions drawn by inquiry officer were based on intelligence reports

No material was available to hold that such conclusions were irrelevant or without any substance

Petitioner regularly attended secret gatherings/meetings of proscribed organization and propagated nefarious designs of the organization

High Court declined to intervene in the detention order passed by authorities

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Grievance of petitioner was that her husband was detained for thirty days by an administrative order on the ground that many criminal cases were pending against the petitioner regarding illegal constructions

Plea raised by authorities was that right of appeal before government was available to petitioner

Validity

No evidence was collected by concerned Authority due to which detention of detenu/husband of petitioner under S. 3(6) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, could be justified

High Court declared the detention orders as illegal, without any lawful justification and ineffective upon the rights of detenu and order of detention was set aside as there was no justifiable reasons available for detention

High Court directed the authorities to release the detenu forthwith if not required in any other case

Petition was allowed in circumstances.