Law: Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation Rules

Section: 51,17

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 6,98

(NOTE:Wrongly 2 citations added in PLD.Both are mentioned.)  (a)     Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation Rules,    r. 51-Discretion of Deputy Commissioner to expel persons front District-Powers unlimited, sweeping and drastic in nature-Provision militates against Fundamental Right No. 5 guaranteed by Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Discretionary remedy, against order of expulsion, by way of revision under S. 17, Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900-No substitute for remedy to which a person has right Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental Right No. 5 Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation (I of 1900), S. 17.   The power given to the Deputy Commissioner under rule 51 of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation Rules is indeed of a sweeping and drastic nature and the mere satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner that the presence in the district of any person who is not a native of the district, is or may be injurious to the peace or good administration of the district is enough to order such person to leave the district within a given time or if he is outside the district to forbid him to enter it. There is no provision for giving to the aggrieved person any opportunity to show cause why he should not be ordered to leave the district nor is there any provision for the person to be present before the Deputy Commissioner and challenge the source or the veracity of any adverse report against the person, on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner may pass such an order. The rule does not put any limitation on the period during which an order passed thereunder will remain in force. The result is that the Deputy Commissioner, can, on the ipse dixit of any person, turn a person out of the district for ever. It is therefore evident that such unlimited power with such far-reaching consequences and without any check and without remedy of a judicial character provided to the aggrieved person to obtain redress of his griev ances do not satisfy the test of "any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest". The restriction under the rule is for an indefinite or an unlimited period. It is dispro portionate…