Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FURQAN KHAN VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SIND
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1086
[Karachi]
Before Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Mazhar Ali, JJ'
FURQAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF SIND‑‑Respondent
Writ Petition No. D‑999 of 1987, decided on 12th November, 1987.
West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑
‑‑‑S.3(6)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199‑‑Detention order, legality of‑‑First detention order expiring‑‑Second detention order passed by another authority‑‑Grounds of detention not supplied to detenu‑‑No reason for not supplying grounds of detention, given‑ Provision for supplying grounds of detention mandatory‑‑Detention order quashed in circumstances.
Fazal Ghani Khan for Petitioner.
A.B. Kazi, A.A.‑G. for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in this case detenu is Haji Jalal Khan and in respect of him first order of detention was passed on 15‑9‑1987 for 30 days. This order was passed by D.C. East. Subsequently, Home Secretary, Government of Sind passed fresh order of detention on 12‑10‑1987 effective from 15‑10‑1987 which is to expire tomorrow i.e. 13‑11‑1987. Contention of the learned counsel is that in support of the first order, grounds of detention were supplied but in support of the second order of detention, which is a fresh order, grounds of detention have not been supplied at all. Emphasis is laid on the fact that second order of detention has been passed by another authority i.e. Home Secretary Government of Sind and in the circumstances, it was mandatory to have supplied grounds of detention as soon as may be as contemplated under section 3(6) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. It is further submitted that no counter‑affidavit has been filed and no reasons are given by the respondent No. 1 for not supplying the grounds of detention within time allowed under the law. Reliance s placed on the unreported judgment in Constitutional Petition No. D‑1146 of 1987. We, therefore, quash the order of detention impugned in this petition, and allow the petition. Detenu may be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.
S. A/F‑42/K Order accordingly.