WAZIR BADSHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND
AJMAL MIAN, J. ‑ The Petitioner claims to be the relation of detenu Sikandar Shah Jadoon. He was arrested in pursuance of an order dated 1112‑198,8 passed by the respondent No. 2 under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Sind Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), for a period of 30 days. In support of the above order 7 criminal cases were mentioned for the ground of detention. After that second order dated 10‑3‑1988 was passed for a period of 15 days w.e.f. 12‑3‑1988 by the respondent No. 1. The grounds were annexed with the order. The above order was extended for a further period of 15 days by an order w.e.f. 26‑3‑1988 by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner had impugned the first order. After the passing of the fresh second order, the petition was amended and thereafter it was again amended because of the extension of the second order.
2. In support of the above petition Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in the grounds of detention one of the grounds mentioned is that the detenu has been indulging in inciting the other people to encroach the KPT land near Butta Village and that the above ground is not supported by any material on record.
On the other hand Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned AA: G. has candidly submitted that none of the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention relates to the above ground nor he has any material in support of the above ground.
3. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the case of Kamal Haider v. The District Magistrate, East Karachi and 4 others, reported in 1988, P Cr. L J 486, in which a Division Bench of this Court while construing Section 3 (1) of the Ordinance, inter alia has held that if one of the grounds of detention was found to be unsustainable, the entire detention order would be vitiated as it would be hard to determine, which of the grounds had led to the passing of the detention order or whether same was the result of all the grounds taken together. Incidentally we may mention that in the above journal the only name of Mamoon Kazi, J. has been mentioned though the case has been decided by a Division Bench comprised of learned Chief Justice and Mamoon Kazi, J. The above case is binding on us.
We, therefore, allow the petition and the order of detention is declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The detenu will be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
S.G.D./W‑29/K
Petition allowed.