MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus S. M. Q. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN
This is a revision petition by Muhammad Sharif under section 19 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959.
2. The facts are that Le was declared a goonda and certain restrictions were placed upon him by the District Tribunal. He was directed to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties in the lake amount to be of a good behaviour for two years and it was also directed that his movements should be restricted to Dipalpur and he shall report his presence daily at Police Station Dipalpur, District Sahiwal. His appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was rejected on 4‑7‑1969.
Hence the revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted first that restriction is equivalent to detention. This view is supported by Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West Pakistan (1). The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provision of Article 10(7) of the present Constitution no one could have been ordered to be detained for an indefinite period and could be detained only for a period of one year.
The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the present case the District Tribunal had not, specified any period for which the movements of the petitioner were restricted and argued that the order was bad for violating the provisions of Article 10(7) of the Constitution of 1973.
The contention is misconceived. The order in question was passed in May 1969 when 1962 Constitution was operative, and there is no restriction of the kind mentioned in Article 10(7) of the present Constitution in the relevant Article of the 1962 Constitution. Moreover, subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, provides that such an order can be made operative for a period of three years.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended next that the petitioner could also not be directed to furnish a bond for a period of two years.
This contention is not correct because subsection (P L D 1963 Lah. 109) of section 14 of the Ordinance provides that the Tribunal can require the person declared goonda to furnish his surety bond for a period "not exceeding three years". This contention also, therefore, fails.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended next that the order with respect to the surety bond was operative for a period of two years from 7‑5‑1969, i e. the date on which the Tribunal passed the impugned order, and that since two years have already passed, the order has expired and cannot be deemed to be operative, even if it be field that an order of this kind could be passed for a duration of two years.
This contention has no force because the impugned order was suspended by the High Court on 24‑9‑1969 i.e. within less than 4 months of its passing, on a prayer made by the petitioner himself. He cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath and urge that the order has expired, notwithstanding its suspension by the High Court, for which he had himself applied. This ground also, therefore, fails.
6. The net result of the above discussion is that the impugned order is upheld, except that the period of restrictions placed on the petitioner is specified as two years. The revision in thus accepted only partially.
Order accordingly.