2002 SCMR 914

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and

Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ

STATE through Advocate-General,

Sindh, Karachi---Petitioner

Versus

Mst. TAJI BIBI --- Respondent

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 353-K of 2001, decided on 19th June, 2001.

(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 16-5-2001, of the High Court, of Sindh, Karachi,
passed in C.P. No. 1096/2000).

West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)----

----S.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.10, 199 & 185(3)-- Constitutional petition before
High Court---Preventive detention---High Court vide order dated 8-8-2000 found the detention
of detenue as without lawful authority and in flagrant violation of mandatory requirements of S.3
of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and Art.10 of the Constitution, and allowed the
detenue compensation a Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32 days---Petition for leave to appeal
filed before Supreme Court against order dated 8-8-2000 was withdrawn by the
State---Advocate-General made a request to High Court to defer further proceedings in the case
till expiry of period of limitation as the Government had decided to file petition before Supreme
Court against order dated 2-4-2001 (another interim order of High Court)---High Court rejected
the request and directed Home Secretary to appear in Court on next date for explain the position
and show as to why further action should not be taken---Validity---High Court after going
through record had rightly found that detenue had been arrested without lawful authority, thus,
had directed the concerned officer to pay compensation---Same matter agitated earlier before
Supreme Court had been disposed of as not pressed by Law Officer---High Court had rightly
rejected the signed statement of Advocate-General---Impugned order was based on sound and
cogent reasons within the principles laid down by Supreme Court, which was not open to
exception---Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.

Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui,

Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 19th June, 2001.

JUDGMENT

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.-----The petitioner-seeks leave to appeal against the
judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 16-5-2001, passed in C. P. No. 1096 of
2000.

2. Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate-General, Sindh made a statement before the Division Bench of
the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, to the effect that the petitioner/Government decided to file
civil petition for Leave to Appeal in this Court challenging the order of the High Court, dated
2-4-2001, with a request that further proceedings may be deferred till the expiry of the period of
limitation. The learned High Court rejected the aforesaid statement of the learned
Advocate-General and directed that the Home Secretary or an Additional Secretary to appear in
Court on 28-5-2001 to explain the position and show why further action should not be taken.

3. We have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate- General, Sindh, who, inter
alia, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable, as the penalty/compensation of
Rs.5,000 per day for the detention of the detenue imposed by the learned High Court is against
the law. Admittedly, the order dated 8-8-2000 was agitated before this Court through Criminal
Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 4786-K of 2000, which was disposed of vide order dated
11-12-2000, as not pressed. During the hearing of the petition it was found by the High Court
that the detenue was kept in custody without lawful order end the order of detention under the
Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, was found to be in flagrant violation of the
mandatory requirements of section 3 of the said Ordinance and Article 10 of the Constitution,
and the detenue was allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32
days.

4. The High Court after going through the record rightly held that the detenue was arrested
without lawful authority, therefore, the concerned officers were directed to pay compensation.
The matter was also agitated before this Court but the learned officer finding himself on weak
vicket did not press the criminal petition, which was disposed of accordingly. The signed
statement of the learned Advocate-General, Sindh, was rightly
rejected by the learned High Court.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and perused
the material placed on the record. The impugned order is based on sound and cogent reasons
within the principle settled by this Court and is not open to exception. Resultantly, this petition is
dismissed on merits and leave is refused.