| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 82 1957 SLD 82 1957 PLD 676 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 512 of 1957, decided on 30th May 1957, under Article 170 of the Constitution read with section 491, Criminal P. C. for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or Mandamus. dates of hearing : 29th and 30th May 1957
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J
Mahmood Ali and Ismail Bhatti for Petitioner. M. Anwar, A. A.G. for
Respondents
Writ Petition No. 512 of 1957, decided on 30th May 1957, under Article 170 of the Constitution read with section 491, Criminal P. C. for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or Mandamus. dates of hearing : 29th and 30th May 1957
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J
Mahmood Ali and Ismail Bhatti for Petitioner. M. Anwar, A. A.G. for
Respondents
Rao MAHROZ AKHTAR
VS
(1) THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DERA GHAZI KHAN AND (2) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTANs
Law: Punjab Public Safety Act, (XVIII of 1949)
Section: 5(1)(b),5
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 11
(a) Habeas Corpus ---- ---Petition can be moved by friend of person detained illegally. A habeas corpus petition can be moved even by a friend of the person detained illegally, and the objection with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner in a case in which a friend of the detenu has made a petition cannot be regarded as well founded. (b) Habeas Corpus---- -----Petition lies where movements of a person are restricted to a specified area-Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949), S. 5 (1) (b). Generally the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is issued in cases of illegal or improper detention in public or private custody but the writ is applicable as a remedy in all cases of wrongful deprivation of personal liberty. The basis of jurisdiction in such cases appears to be the deprivation of personal liberty without legal justification. A writ or direction in the nature of habeas corpus could be issued in a case in which movements of a person were restricted to specified area provided deprivation of liberty involved could be held to be legally unjustified. Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II p. 24, (3rd Edn.). ref. Bird v. Jones (1847) 7 Q B 742 at p. 744 ; Ferries "Extraordinary Legal Remedies" (1926 Edn.); Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn.); A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras A I R 1950 S C 27 at p. 37 ; Girindra Nath v. Birendra Nath A I R 1927 Cal. 496 and Muhammad Umar v. The Crown P L D 1955 Lah. 180 considered. (c) Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949)----- ----S. 5 (1)(b) -Movements confined to a specified area-Order of confinement may attract Art. 11 rather than Art. 7 of the, Constitution of Pakistan-Issue of reasonableness of restriction with reference to Art. 11 justiciable. The order of internment within a specified area falls more appropriately within the purview of Article 11 of the Constitution than within the scope of preventive detention dealt with in Article 7. The phrase "preventive detention" occurring in clause (4) of Article 7, involves some species of custody or arrest which may be wanting in an order of internment within a specified area. The issue of reasonableness of such a restriction is a justiciable issue. (d) Constitution of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492