Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3444 = 1963 SLD 3444 = 1963 PLD 337
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 133 of 1963, decided on 22nd March 1963.
Presented By: Manzur Qadir, C. J. and Abdul Aziz Khan, J  
  Sh. Bashir Ahmad with S. M. Zafar, Hafiz-ur-Rehman and Fazal Husain for Petitioner.   Khalid Ishaq, Additional Advocate-General with M. B. Zaman A. A.-G. for
Respondents.   Dates of hearing : 4th and 5th March 1963.  

RAFIQUE AHMAD SHEIKH-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  THE STATE AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)----   -----Ss. 3 (2) (10)-Governor by Notification (No. 1235/BDSB, dated 22-2-1963) authorising D. I. G. Police to hold interrogations of members of public in terms of subsection (10) of S. 3, without first conferring authority for making of reports to Government under subsection (2) of S. 3 - Notification, held, invalid-Acts performed in pursuance of such Notification of no legal effect-Provisions of Ordinance to be strictly construed.   The power mentioned in subsection (10) of section 3, West Pakistan (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance, 1960 is available only to the persons mentioned in subsection (2) thereof. In the present case it was the Governor himself who had authorised certain persons to perform the function of interrogation, which is a power under subsection (10). This power being available only to persons authorised under subsection (2) of section 3 it must be held that it had been wrongly exercised by the Governor unless the Governor himself was to be regarded as included among the persons authorised under subsection (2). In other words, unless it can be said that the phrase, "a District Magistrate or any other servant of Government" (section 3) can include the Governor himself, the source of the notification must be held to be defective. It is impossible, in the context, to construe those words to include the Governor himself.   The power to authorise someone to perform the function of interrogation independently of the function described in subsection (2) of section 3 is not vested in the Governor.   The Ordinance, however essential for public safety or for the maintenance of order, is a law which makes a serious inroad into the liberty of the citizen and must, therefore, be construed strictly.   If, therefore, in the Ordinance some requirements are specified which bear on the question of how the Government is to be "satisfied" of the necessity, it should be presumed that the Legislature intended those requirements to be in the nature of limitations for the purpose of ensuring due care, caution and attention before the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register