| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 148 1958 SLD 148 = 1958 PLD 104 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 436 of 1957, decided on 10th December1957, for issue of writ of Habeas corpus under Article 170of the Constitution. DATE of hearing: 11th November 1957
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. SHABIR AHMAD AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Writ Petition No. 436 of 1957, decided on 10th December 1957, for issue of writ of Habeas corpus under Article 170 of the Constitution. Date of hearing. 11th November 1957Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmood, Additional Advocate-General for
Writ Petition No. 436 of 1957, decided on 10th December1957, for issue of writ of Habeas corpus under Article 170of the Constitution. DATE of hearing: 11th November 1957
S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. SHABIR AHMAD AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ
Writ Petition No. 436 of 1957, decided on 10th December 1957, for issue of writ of Habeas corpus under Article 170 of the Constitution. Date of hearing. 11th November 1957Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmood, Additional Advocate-General for
ABDUL AZIZ alias LABHAVsTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, Lahore and THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN
Law: West Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949)
Section: 3
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 7 (4)
(a) West Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949).(as subsequently amended)-History of amendments.(b) West Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949),S. 3 read with Art. 7 (4), Constitution of Pakistan-S. 3 not invalid for lack of a provision for examination of detenu's case by the Advisory Board, as envisaged in Art. 7(4)-Incorporation of such a provision not necessary for validity of Act-Detention under S. 3 legal if provisions of Art. 7 (4) complied with-Art. 7 (4) guarantees "another" fundamental right and does not prescribe a qualification for validity of preventive detention laws-West Pakistan Preventive Detention Laws (Amendment) Ordinance (V1 of 1956), S. 2-Lapse of Ordinance-Effect.Held, that clause (4) of Article 7, Constitution of Pakistan guarantees another fundamental right; it does not prescribe a special qualification for laws relating to preventive detention in the sense that without including such a provision that law would be invalidated. The result is that the detention could be challenged if in fact the provisions of clause (4) of Article 7 were not complied with in cases of detention exceeding three months.In the present cases, the provisions of that clause had been strictly complied with, despite the omission of the amend�ments introduced in the Act by West Pakistan Preventive Detention Laws (Amendment) Ordinance VI of 1956, the omission being the consequence of lapsing of the Ordi�nance itself by flux of time.Orders of detention, therefore, did not suffer from any legal defect on this ground.Prahalad Jona and others v. State A I R 1950 Orissa 157 and Brahmeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar A I R 1950 Pat. 265 distinguished.Fazal Ahmad Ghazi v. The State P L D 1957 Kar. 190 dissented from.(c) Constitution of Pakistan,Art. 7 (5)-Incorporation, in a detention law, of provision in regard to communication of grounds of detention not necessary for validity of detention law.That a provision with regard to communication of grounds of detention had to be included in a detention law, in order to make it valid, appears to be untenable on the plain wording of Article 7 of the Constitution. Clause (5) of that Article is clearly independent of clause…