Aftab Alam etc Vs Secty. Home & Tribal Affairs, Govt of KP etc

*r.*

HIGH COURT. PTSIIAWAR

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

WP No. 1783-P/2023

Aftab Alam and another

Petitioners

Versus

Secretary Home & TribalAffairs, Govt. of KPK, Peshawar and others.

.Respondents.

For the Petitioners: M/s Fahim Khan, Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Muhammad Taif Khan & AliZaman, Advocates.

For the Respondents M/s Aamir Javed Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa &Sanaullah Deputy Attorney General.

Date of Hearing: 30.05.2023

Date of Announcement: 31.05.2023

JUDGMENT

SYED ARSHAD ALI, J:-On 31.05.2023, these petitions were disposed of by means of the following short order:- For reasons to be recorded later, the instant Writ Petition as well as the connected Writ Petitions, the detatled list has been provided in Annexure 'A' to this Short Order, are disposed of in the following manner:- i. The impugned orders of the detention of the petitioners under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 ("Ordinance") read with Notification No. 3-104/H- SPL-1-64 dated 27.02.1965 and Notification No. SO(JUDL)HD/3-92/2008 dated 02.09.2009 are not maintainable for absurdity, vagueness, lack of reasons/sufficient material while passing the impugned orders by the Deputy Commissioner, which ore occordingly set aside and the petitioners be < released forthwith on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One Lac each with two sureties each in the likE amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner with an undertaking they ffitr1X11y^^ shall not involve in any anti-state activities and shall not act prejudicially to the public sofety in any Sffi,. manner (if such bail bond has not already been

furnished in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.05.2023), if not required in any other case.

ii. The respondents/ District Administration/ Provincial Government would be at liberty to initiate proceedings and pass an appropriate order under the Ordinance against the petitioners when it is satisJied that there are stfficient material against any of the petitioner relating to their any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order and their arrest/detention ore necessary for maintaining the public safety and public order.

iii.Those petitioners, whose detention orders passed under Section 3 of the Ordinqnce, were suspended by this Court subject to furnishing bail bonds along with an undertoking, referred above, and pursuant to the said order, the required bail bonds have been furnished along with the above referred undertaking, their such release on the same terms, as stated aboye, are hereby confirmed subject to para-ii above.

iv. Those petitioners, whose detention orders have been suspended by this Court and so far neither they are arrested nor required in any other case, shall submit bail bonds in sum of Rs. One Lac each with two sureties each in the like amount along with an undertaking referued above to the satisfaction of Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner within five (05) days from the date ofjudgment of this Court.

v. The bail bond/surety bondfurnished and executed as stated above would be valid for a period of six (06) months from the date of the bond.

The reasons for the short order are given below:

2.The petitioners have challenged their detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (*MPO'). It was on 09.05.2023 that the former Prime Minister Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi was arrested by the Law Enforcing Agencies within the premises of Islamabad High Court. The said arrest was protested by the tr2 members of the Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf throughout the country, and, as evident from the reports in print as well as electronic media, a good number of such protestors created serious law &order situation throughout the country by attacking public places and burning public property andprivate

vehicles, military installations, and making hate speeches etc. However, upon the release of the former Prime Minister by the Apex Court on llth May, 2023, the situation returned to normalcy.

3.On 10.05 .2023, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home & Tribal Affairs Department, through a letter addressed to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Interior, Islamabad intimated them of the prevailing law & order circumstances, and for safety of life and property of citizens as well as security of government installations, placed a request for acquisition of Armed Forces in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constilution'). On the same date, the Federal Government while honouring such request and by exercising powers conferred under Article 245 of the Constitution and Section 4(3) (ii) of Anti-Terrorism Act,1997, authorized deployment of Pakistan Army troops (assets troops) in aid of civil power for safety of life and property of citizens as well as security of government installations in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. Letter dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home & Tribal Affairs Department is evident to show that Rules of Engagement for Pakistan Army were issued in consultation with the Headquarter ll-Corps, Peshawar, speciffing the exact contour of deployment of Pakistan Army in respective formation area of responsibility.

4.In the aftermath of 9ft May 2023, a good number of citizens, who purportedly remained violent and attacked the 4 govemment installations, burnt public place, and vehicles, and endangered the lives of people were booked in criminal cases. From amongst them, the present Petitioners before this Court wereput under preventive detention under Section 3 MPO. When the matter came up for hearing on L8.05.2023, IvIr.

Aamir Javed, the worthy Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these petitions in terms of Article 2a5Q) ot the Constitution and has also argued that notices were required to be given to the Advocate General and Auorney General since interpretation of various provisions of the Constitution is involved in this matter, consequently, noticeswere issued to the Advocate General and Attorney General for Pakistan under Order-XXVII-A CPC to assist this Court on the following legal issue.

"llrhether the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution can be pressed into service where the Armed Forces have been called in aid of civil power for safety of lfe and property of citizen qs well as security of government installations, by issuing notification under the provision of Article 245(j) of the Constitution?

5.Today, while opening his arguments, the worthy Advocate General has reiterated the aforesaid preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of these petitions. He has maintained that neither the action of the Federal Government under Article 245 of the Constitution has been challenged in these petitions nor as evident from the express language of clause (3) of Article 245 of the Constitution, this Court has any jurisdiction in the matter. The worthy Advocate General, while relying upon the observations of the Hon'ble Courts, in the cases of Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others vs. Federation of Pakistan throush Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentarv Affaifs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 Supreme Court 504), Niaz Ahmed Khan vs. Province of Sind and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) and Darwesh M. Arbev, t7- Advocute vs. Federation of Pakistan throush the Law Secretarv and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206) has argued that when the Armed Forces of Pakistan have been called to act in aid of civil power in pursuance of Article 245 of the

Constitution, a High Court cannot entertain any petition under Article 199 of the Constitution which is indeed an expressbar, therefore, this petition as well as the connected petitions merit outright dismissal. On merit, the worthy Advocate General has contended that a good number of petitioners were found involved in anti-state activities and there is every likelihood of repetition of the said acts, therefore, the order of preventive detention of the petitioners was not only justified but in the interest of the State. He has next argued that a complete legal mechanism /dispensation has been provided under the MPO which, inter alia, includes the availability of alternate remedy before the Board constituted under Section 3(5) of the MPO which is an appropriate forum to consider the representation made by an aggrieved person and to pass any order on the detention of the detenue keeping in view the material placed before it.

6.IWs Muhammad Muazzam Butt & Ali Zaman Advocate, ttre learned counsel representing the petitioners while rebutting the arguments of worthy Advocate General, have argued that since the impugned order of detention is based on malafide, besides being absurd, therefore, this Court has every jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In support of their contention, they have placed reliance on the cases of Shahid Rasool vs. Government of the Puniab throueh Secretarv Home Lahore and 6 others (202s

YLR 333) and Federation of Pakistan throush Secretarv 4 Ministrv of Interior, Islamabad vs. Mrs. Amatul fafil €7'- Khawaia and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 442).

7.Mr. Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate, the leamed counsel also representing the petitioners, has argued that despite the constitutional bar, the Court can still look into the propriety of the impugned order if it is clear from the record that the impugned action of authority is tainted with

malice. As a result, these petitions are maintainable, and the petitioners deserve to be released.

8.We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Opinion of the Court on the maintainabilitv of these petitions.

9.It is the case of the respondent-Government that when the Armed Forces are directed by the Federal Government to act in aid of civil power in terms of Article 245 of the Constitution, then during such period and in relation to the area demarcated for the purpose, the High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Before embarking upon this legal proposition, we would like to refer to the history of the said legislation.

10.In the original text, Article 245 read as "the Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so".

11.The bare reading of the said Article would show that it dealt with only the situation where the Armed Forces were required to perform their twofold duties; (i) to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war and (ii) subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so. After general election in 1977 when late Zulfrkar Ali Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister, the Opposition Parties .A under the banner of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) carried out large scale demonstration to protest against the alleged rigging and manipulation in the election process by the ruling party of the then Prime Minister. Their demand being re- polling, the protest and demonstrations, though peaceful initially, turned violent and resulted in losses to property and

v lives. In order to curb the situation, Martial Law was imposed in Lahore, by the Federal Government, while exercising its authority under Article 245 of the constitution, and the Armed Force of Pakistan were directed, subject to law, to act in aid of civil power. The Defence of Pakistan ordinance, r97r and the Army Act 1952 were amended whereby certain powers were given to the Armed Forces relating to maintaining public order. The aforesaid impugned actions were challenged before the Lahore High court through a number of constitutional Petitions.r t2. Similarly, in Karachi and Hyderabad Divisions, CurfewAvlartial Law was imposed which led to an unfortunate incidenti.e. fatal shootings of citizen in Liaqat Abad by the Law Enforcing Agencies deployed in the area. The said acts were challenged by Niaz Ahmed Khan, an Advocate of the Karachi High Court, before the Sindh High Court through various constitutional petitions.2 During the said proceedings, on 16th Muy, L977, Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1977 was introduced in Parliament, inter alia, for further amending Article 245 of the Constitution. We have also carefully perused the legislative debate at the timebut it appears from the same that no one from PNA had participated in the said proceedings of the Assembly, therefore, the pro and cons of the said amendment could not be debated or considered. However, the Act was ultimately passed and assented to by the President whereby Article 245 of the Constitution was amended as follows:

245.(1) The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.

Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). 2 Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sind and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604)

@ The validity of any direction issued by the Federal Government under clause (I) shalt not be called in question in any court.

O A High Court shall not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the Armed Forces of pakistan are, for the time being, acting in aid of civil power in pursuqnce of Article 245:

Provided that this clause shall not be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any proceeding pending immediately before the day on which the Armed Forces start acting in aid of civil power.

(4)Any proceeding in relotion to on area referred to in clause (3) instituted on or afier the day the Armed Forces start acting tn aid of civil power ond pending in any High Court shall remain suspended for the period during which the Armed Forces are so acting.

13.The essential issue before this Court is the bar of jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 245(3) of the Constitution. The scheme of governance provided under constitutional dispensation is to have trichotomy of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Each of the organs may be fashioned in a variety of different forms and shapes. Indeed, it is the Constitution which defines the functions of each organ and also specific territories in which, the subject in respect of which, and sometimes even the circumstances in which these functions will be exercised by each of these organs or sub-organs.3

14.The Apex Court in the case of District Bar Association Rawalpindi has re-affirmed the independence of judiciary as one of the salient features and basic structure of the Constitution. It is emphasized in the judgment supra that the salient features, as ascertainable from the Constitution, includes Democracy, Parliamentary form of Government and Independence of Judiciary. The Courts are always vested with jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution inorder to ascertain and identiflr its defining salient features. It is equally The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49)

vestedwith jurisdiction to examine the vires of any constitutional amendment so as to determine whether any of the salient features of the constitution has been repealed, abrogated or substantively altered as a consequence thereof.a

15.In our constitution, we can notice that not only Article 199 of the constitution starts with the phrase ,subject to constitution' but there are other provisions in the constitution expressly barring the jurisdiction of the constitutional courts e.g., Article 2lz and Article 225 of the constitution. In these cases, the bar is obvious for the reasons that in the matter of civil services and election disputes a complete mechanism has been provided either under the constitution or the law made thereunder. The said disputes are decided by the forum either established under the mandate of Constitution or sub-Constitutional Law but within the parameters provided under Article 175 of the Constitution.5

16.However, very often we are confronted with the situation when no alternate remedy is available to an aggrieved person but still the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred. Article 245(3) of the Constitution is one such example. In the case of Zafar-u1-Ahsan6, while considering the ouster clause in clause (5) of Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, which expressly said that an order of the authority mentioned in clause (3) of that order "shall not be called in question in any Court", ,a1 Munir, C.J. while speaking for the Court observed: - "If a statute provides that an order made by an <<, authority acting under it shall not be colled in question in any Court, all that is necessary to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is that the authority should have been constituted as required by the statute, the person proceeded against should be District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (pLD 2015 SC Service Tribunal/Election Tribunal Zafar-ul-Ahsan v. The Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1960 SC I 13)

subject to the jurisdiction of the authority, the ground on which action is taken should be within the grounds stated by the statute, and the order made should be such as could have been made under the statute. These conditions being satisfied, the ouster is complete even though in following the statutory procedure some omission or iruegularity might hwe been committed by the authority. If an appellate authority is provided by the statute, the omissions or irregularity alleged will be a motter for that authority, and not, as rightly observed by the High Court, for a court of law. Of course where the proceedings are taken mala fide and the statute is used merely as a cloak to cover an act which in fact is not taken though it purports to have been taken under the statute, the order will not, in accordance with a long line of decisions in England and in this sub-continent, be treated as an order under the statute".

17.In the case of Zia-ur-Rahman (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the interpretation of the ouster clause as provided in Article 2817 of the Interim Constitution Order, 1972 observed that:

"In either view of the matter, therefore, the conclusion to which I have arrived is that the validity given by clause (2) of Article 281 of the Interim Constitution to acts done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers given byMartial Lan Regulations and Orders since repealed or even in the purported exercise of those powers do not have the ffict of validating acts done coram non judice or without jurisdiction ormala fide. Such an interpretation, in my view, not only gives full effect to the provisions of the Interim Constitutton but also tl administers the will of the Law-maker as far as it can be gathered from a harmonious reading of the

281.(1) All Proclamations, President's Orders, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, and all other laws made as from the twenty-fifth day of March 1969, are hereby declared, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, to have been validly made by the competent authority, and shall not be called in question in any Court.

(2)All orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, on or after the twenty-fifth day of March, 1969, n exercise of the powers derived from any President's Orders, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, enactments, notification, rules, orders or bye-laws, or in execution of any orders made or sentences passed by an authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done.

(3)No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Court against any authority or any person for or on account of or in respect of any order made, proceedings taken or not done, whether in the exercise or purported exercise of powers referred to in clause (2), or in execution of or in compliance with orders made or sentences passed in exercise or purported exercise ofsuch powers.

provisions of clause (2) of Article 2gl along with some of the other provisions of the some Constitutton without departing fro,m the well_ recognized principle that the Legisrature shourd not be imputed the tntention of perpetuating or perpetroting an injustice,' .

Soon after the judgment in Zia-ur-Rehman,s case, clause (2) ofArticle 281 of the Interim constitution was amended, by adding a deeming clause and an ouster of jurisdiction clause to that Article. Thereafter, the Interim constitution was replaced by the constitution of rg73 in which Article 281(2) of the Interim constitution as Article 269(2) was reproduced with a view to strengthen the validation and ouster provisions. That Article provided that the orders made and actions taken inpurported exercise of powers under Martial Law Regulations and Orders ,,shall notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever".

In Saeed Ahmad Khan's case (PLD t974 SC 151) Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan was seized with the matter of interpretation of Article 269(2). Despite the insertion of the words "on any ground whatsoever", the Supreme Court did not agree that the acts, orders or proceedings which are done, taken or made without jurisdiction, malafide or coram non judice, have been saved from the security of the courts by the ouster clause.

4 The Apex Court in the case of Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khargdealt with the ouster clause under Article Z7O-A of the Constitution. The main object whereof was (a) to confer validity upon acts,actions andproceedings, done or taken when Federation of Pakistan v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar @LD 1989 SC 26)

the Martial Law was in force; and (b) to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts from examining their validity. If there is a dispute on the point whether a court has or does not have jurisdiction over a certain subject-m atter, it can certainly hear that dispute even if the result be that it has to hold that it has no jurisdiction. Indeed, it is now ,,an established principle of law that the courts of this country are the judges of their own jurisdiction,, and it has been consistently held uthat the question, as to whether a superior court has jurisdiction in a particular matter or not, is to be decided by the court itself'. In so doing, the courts exercise their judicial power, which is a constitutional power and which cannot be taken away by a sub-constitutional law.e It is now firmly established that an ouster clause, however, widely worded and whether it occurs in a constitution or in an ordinary Statute, does not save an act or order without jurisdiction (which expression compendiously describes and includes acts and orders coram-non-judice and malafide).ro

18.The interpretation of bar of jurisdiction under Article 245(3) of the Constitution came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble Sindh High Court and Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the cases of Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others vs. Federation of Pakistan throush Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentarv Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD a 1999 Supreme Court 504), Niaz Ahmed Khan vs. Province olSind and others (PLD 1977 Karachi 604) and Darwesh M. Arbev, Advocate vs, Federation of Pokistan through the LawSecretarv and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206). It would beimportant to note that in all these cases, it was not a Judicial Review of Public Acts (Volume-l) by Justice (R) Fazal Karim. l0 Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974) SC l5l).

simple matter of interpretation of Article 245 of the constitution but in all the three cases, the Armed Forces were directed by the Federal Government to act in aid of civil power when there were extra ordinary circumstances; for example, at the time of insertion of the clause, there was an emergency in the country as contemplated under Articles 232tt and, 23312 of the constitution. In the said dispensation, ll

232.(l) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or extemal aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.

Provided that for imposition of emergency due to intemal disturbances beyond the powers of a Provincial Government to control a resolution from the Provincial Assembly or that Province shall be required:

Provided further that if the President acts on his own, the Proclamation of Emergency shall be placed before both Houses of Majlis-e-shoora (Parliament) for approval by each House within ten days.

(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force-

(a)Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall have power to make laws for a province, or any part thereof, with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List.

(b)the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the giving of directions to a Province as to the manner in which the executive authority of the Province is to be exercised; and

(c)the Federal Govemment may by Order assure to itself, or direct the Govemor of a Province to assume on behalf of the Federal Govemment, all or any of the functions of the Government ofthe Province, and all or any ofthe powers vested in, or exercisable by, any body or authority in the Province other than the Provincial Assembly, and make such incidental and consequential provisions as appeax to the Federal Government to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending, in whole or in part, the operation of any provisions of the Constitution relating to any body or authority in the Province: Provided that nothing in paragraph (c) shall authorize the Federal Government to assume to itself, or direct the Govemor of the Province to assume on its behalf, any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend either in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of the Constitution relating to High Courts.

(3)The power of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to make laws for a Province with respect to any matter shall include power to make laws conferring powers and imposing duties, or authorizing the conferring ofpowers and the imposition ofduties upon the Federation, or officers and authorities of the Federation, as respects that matter.

(4)Nothing in this Article shall restrict the power of a Provincial Assembly to make any law which under the Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of an Act of Provincial law is repugrant to any provision of an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)which Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has under this Article power to make, the 2 Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has under this Article power to make, the Act of Majlis-e'Shoora (Parliament), whether passed before or after the Provincial law, shall prevail and the Provincial law shall, to the extent ofthe repugnancy, but so long only as the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) continues to have effec! be void.

(5)A law made by Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) which Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) would not but for the issue of a Proclamation of Emergency have been competent to make, shall, to the extent ofthe incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration ofa period of six months after the Proclamation of Emergency has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration ofthe said period.

(6)While a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) may by law extend the term of the National Assembly for a period not exceeding one year and not extending in any case beyond a period ofsix months after the Proclamation has ceased to be in force.

(7)A Proclamation of Emergency shall be laid before a joint sitting which shall be summoned by the President to meet within thirty days of the Proclamation being issued and-

(a)Shall cease to be in force at the expiration oftwo months unless before the expiration ofthat period it has been approved by a resolution ofthe joint sitting;

Articles 15, L6, 17,18, 19 fell under eclipse as far as the exercise of executive authority by the executive limb of the State and the power of legislation to legislate law for the particular purpose. ln Niaz Ahmed Khan's case Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Sindh High court explained the parameter of powers by the Armed Forces under Article 245 and observed that an embargo has been placed by the Constitution under Article 245 by word subject to law, this excludes any scope of an invasion by the Armed Forces which may amount to transgression of law and therefore, no act on the part of the Armed Forces would be justified in the garb of aid to civil power unless it is shown to be under the law.

19.After amendment, the law laid down through (Seventh Amendment) Act No. XXIII of 1977 was thrashed

out by Full Bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the case of Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate."Clarrs"-3 of Article 245 of the Constitution is an ouster ofjurisdiction clause. The ratio of the case ibid was that the ouster provided in Article 245 does not operate as complete ouster of jurisdiction, and has been

(b)shall, subject to the provisions ofparagraph (a), cease to be in force upon a resolution disapproving the proclamation being passed by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the two Houses in joint sitting.

(8)Nofwithstanding anything contained in clause (7), if the National Assembly stands dissolved at the time when a Proclamation of Emergency is issued, the Proclamation shall continue in force for a period of four months but, if a general election to the Assembly is not held before the expiration ofthat period, it shall cease to be in force at the expiration of that period unless it has earlier been approved by a resolution ofthe Senate.

233.(l) Nothing contained in Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 24 shall, while a t2

Proclamation of Emergency is in force, restrict the power of the State as defined in Article 7 to make any law or to take any executive action which it would, but for the provisions in the said Articles, be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent ofthe incompetency, cease to have effect, and shall be deemed to have been repealed, at the time when the Proclamation is revoked or has ceased to be in force.

(2)While a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, the President may, by Order, declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I ofPart II as may be specified in the Order, and any proceeding in any court which is for the enforcement, or involves the determinationof any question as to the infringement, of any of the Rights so specified, shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force, and any such Order may be made in respect of the whole or any part of Pakistan.

(3)Every Order made under this Article shall, zrs soon as may be, be laid before both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) separately for approval and the provisions of clauses (7) and (8) of Article 232 shall apply to such an Order as they apply to a Proclamation of Emergency.

l3 Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 others (PLD 1980 Lahore 206).

made contingent upon the existence of certain factors mentioned in that clause. The Hon'ble Court assumed the jurisdiction by analyzing the law in view of the following jurisdictional points :

(i)Whether there is a direction of the Federal Government under Article 2a5(I);

(ii)Whether the Armed Forces start acting in aid of the civil power in pursuance of that direction; and (iii)Whether the area has been specified and identified where they are so acting.

Aslam Riaz Hussain J, as then he was, interpreted the ouster ofjurisdiction clause of Article 245, as follows:- "15. The positton with regard to clause (3) of Article 245, is, however, dffirent because the wording of this clause does not spell out a naked ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 but the same has been made contingent upon the existence of certain factors mentioned in that clantse".

20.The matter of interpretation of Article 245 also came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the case of Niaz Ahmed Khan."The purpose of introduction of Anicle 245 was laid down as under:- "It was for this reason that the makers of the Constitution enacted Article 245 so that use of Armed Forces may be availed of in an emergency but with the restriction that it be only on a direction issued by the Federal Government and also the Armed Forces will act subject to law".

The then Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh Mr. Justice Abdul Kadir Shaikh explained the parameters of exercise of powers by the Armed Forces under Article 245 and observed that:

4 "An embargo has been placed by the Constitution under Article 245 by the words subject to law this excludes any scope of an invasion by the Armed Forces which moy qmount to transgression of low and, therefore, no act on the part of the Armed Forces would be justified in the garb of aid to civil power unless it is shown to be under the law".

14 Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sind and others (PLD 1977) Karachi 604).

t6 The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court as well as the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the cases (supra) that the ouster clause under Article 245 is not absolute was also approved by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sh. Liaquat Hussainls the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "21. The controversy revolves around the meaning of the expression 'act in aid of civil power' employed in the above clause (1) of Article 245 of the Constitution. It seems that the above expression presupposes that the civil power is still there, it is neither supplanted nor effaced out. The civil power is to be preserved and invigorated through the employment of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces can be called in aid under the above clause by the Federal Government inter alia to perform police functions for limited purpose of suppressing riots or preventing threatened disorder or for the purpose of maintaining law and order and security or to assist/help in natural calamities alongwith the civil authorities. But the Armed Forces cannot abrogate, abridge or displace civil power of which Judiciary is an important and integral part' In other words, the Armed Forces cannot displace the Civil/Criminal Courts while acting in aid of civil power. They can certainly arrest those who threaten -or disturb peace and tranquillity. They may also assist in investigation of a case and the prosecution of the same but the case is to be tried by a Court established in terms of the iudgment of this Court in the case of Mehram Ali (supra). The employment of the expression "subject to law" clearly demonstrates that the Armed Forces will have to act within the parameters of the Constitution and the law obtaining. The scope of the above power which is exercisable by the Armed Forces in aid of the civil power can only be enlarged by amending Article 245 of the Constitution".

2t. From the survey of the aforesaid case-law, we would deduce the following guidelines while invoking 4 constitutional jurisdiction even in the matter when there is absolute bar either statutory or constitutional to assume jurisdiction.

l5 Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 SC 504)

t7 :? (i) That, inter alia, independence ofiudiciary is one of the basic structure and salient feature of the Constitution; thus, it is vested with jurisdiction to examine even the vires of any constitutional amendment so as to determine whether any of the salient feature of the Constitution has been repealed, abrogated or substantively altered os a consequence thereof. District Bar Rawalpindi vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 401).

(iD In cases where there is bar ofjurisdiction of the High Court, either provided under the Constitution or through any Statute, the High Court still hasthe iurisdiction to examine the act of any authority, fficer or government under its inherent power of judicial review soas to see whether the impugned action is in accordance with low whether iurisdiction exercised is not in excess of iurisdiction vested in an authority andwhether there is no element of malafide' In view of the above, the objection of the worthy Advocate General relating to the maintainability of these petitions is ovemrled.

22.Havingdecidedthepreliminaryobjection regarding maintainability of these petitions, we proceed to decide the cases on merit. The petitioners in all the petitions have challenged their detention order issued under Section 3 of the MPO by the Deputy Commissioners. We , have perused the impugned orders. In some of the orders it is mentioned that upon information placed before the Deputy Commissioner by the District Police Officer that the petitioners indulged in illegal activities and disrupted the peaceful atmosphere of the District, blocked different roads, inflicted losses to the public property and thus, the said activities are prejudicial to the public safety which may cause serious damage to life and liberty of the public warranting immediate preventive actions to safeguard life and property of the public and to maintain peace in the area. The detention orders would show that stereotype orders were issued by the

Deputy Commissioners wherein certain orders blank spaces were filled with names of detenue. The respondents could not place on file any material except the First Information Report whereby certain detenues were charged in the incident of 9tr Muy, 2023. It appears from the impugned orders that the Deputy Commissioners, while issuing the impugned orders, have acted in haste and passed the orders of detention in slipshod manner on the basis of sancro-style report of the police without adverting to any material relating to the involvement of the detenues in anti-state activities.

23.The law regarding preventative detention in Pakistan remained developed not only through various Constitutions itself but also through various public safety laws, including the Public Safety Ordinances of 1,949, 1952 and the last one in the field i.e. the MPO. The concept of preventive detention is well explained by Mr. A.K. Brohi in "Fundamental Law of Pakistan" which reads as under:- "Preventive detention is an abnormal measure in that it authorises the executive to impose restraints upon the liberty of a man who may not have iommitted a crime but who, it is apprehended, is about to commit acts that are prejudicial to the public safety etc. It is only during the periods of emergency that resort to this abnormal power can bejitified. During the two world wars in England, for example, powers of preventive detention were -exercisecl in the interest of the security of the realm".

He quoted from Justice Rex. V. Halliday as r'. under:

"The word 'preventive' appearing in the expression 'preventive detention' is used to indicate an idea it irl, may not be grasped by merely contrasting it from the one conveyed by the word 'punitive'' Preventive detention does not thus amount to subjecting a man to punishment but it merely criates a situation in which he may be prevented -likety doing somethingwhich from it is apprehended he is to di andwhich act law forbids him to do"'

t9

24.Section 3 of the MPO is somehow based on the same principle, however, in order to curtail the liberty of a citizen of Pakistan, which is guaranteed through Article 9 of the Constitution and similarly to be treated in accordance with law being inalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan (Article-4), the Government or an officer of the Government exercising the delegated powers has to satisff himself that the said order of the detention is issued solely for the purpose of preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order and when it is necessary to do so by an order in writing direct the arrest and detention of such pers.on. The Hon'ble Sindh High Court in the case of Muhammad Younast6while relying on various judgments of the Apex Court has explained the concept of preventive detention, which reads as under:- "8. I would now, with respect, summaries some of the principles to be applied to cases of preventive detention which, according to my understanding, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in the four cages which I have discussed above. But, before doing so, I may note here that Article 201 of the Interim Constitution is in identical terms to Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 and, likewise, in essentiql respects, section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is similar to rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules which were under consideration before their Lordships in three of the four cases referued to above. Further, Article 3 of the Interim 4 Constitution ,s the same as Article 2 of the 4 Constitution of 1962 and Article 3 should be read with Article 8 of the Interim Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with low. Now, as to the principles deductible from these four coses, these are:-

(i)It is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and only in accordance with law, that is according to the accepted norms of legal process and in

l6 Muhammad Younas v. Province of Sindh through the Secretary to the Govemment of Sind Home Department and Secretariat, Karachi and 2 others (PLD 1973 Kmachi 694)

strict compliance with all the functions and duties laid down by law.

(ii)The Superior Court is expressly empowered to probe into exercise of public power by executive authorities to determine whether they have acted with lawful authority qnd in lawful manner.

(iii)The burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of the preventive detention, for which purpose the authority must place the whole material, upon which the order of detention is based, before the Court, the validity of the claim of privilege with respect to any document beingwithin the competence of the Court alone to decide.

(iv)The exercise of power by the detaining authority is subject to the ascertainment of reasonable grounds, which is a iudicial or quas i j udic ial func t i o n.

(v)Action taken without proper application of the mind of the detaining authority would not qualify as action in accordance with law and the power to order detention of a particular person is coupled with the duty to apply the mind as to the necessity of such person's detention on the material available to the authority.

(vi)The superior Court is empowered to examine the reasonableness of the action of the detaining authority, that is to say, to see whether a reasonable person would hwe formed, on the material available to the detaining authority, the same opinion as formed by the authority with regard to the detention of the detenu, and in doing so it would be competent to also consider whether the grounds are within the lqw making power of the Legislature andwithin the arnbit of the statute relating to preventive detention and are not non-existent and are otherwise not bad.

(vii)"satisfaction" of the detaining authority means a state of mind which has been induced by the existence of reasonable grounds for such satisfaction- The word 4 ;'satisfaction" connotes a state of mind bordering on conviction induced by the existence of facts which have removed the doubts, tf any, from the mind and taken-it out of the stage of susPicion.

(viii)The superior Court is empowered to make an enquiry into the bona Jides or good faith of the action taken by the detaining authority' (ix) If there are several grounds of detention, ihrn each gtound contributes to the satisfaction of the detaining authority and no ground can be excluded from consideration

2L

in judging the legality of the order of detention and wrongful inclusion of any ground would render the orders of arrest and detention illegal".

25.The Apex court in the case of Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawajalz while explaining the pre-requisite condition i.e. satisfaction before issuing a detention order by the Government or a person exercising the delegated powers stressed that the satisfaction should not be whimsical but the same should be based on some evidence on record justiffing

the detention order.

26.Inthepresentcase,wehavetoseewhetherany material existed before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner while making the impugned orders of detention of the detenues. Admittedly, action against the petitioners was initiated under the MPO. We have perused the impugned orders of detention and are of the considered opinion that itlacks the essential attributes envisaged by Section 3 of the MPO and the law laid down by the Superior Courts as stated above. As a result, thereof, the impugned orders issued by the

Deputy commissioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly set aside'

27.The foregoing are reasons for the short order in terms of which these petitions were disposed of'

ANNOUNCED.

Nowab Shah CS

Judse

(DB)Justice lshtiaq lbrahim & Justice Syed Arshad Islamabad v' Mrs' t7 Federation of Pakistan through secretary Ministry of Interior, Amatul Jalil Khawaja and others (PLD 2003 SC 442)

v Annexure 66Att S.,A/o. Case title

I WP No. 1783-P/2023 "Afiab Alam and another vs. Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs and others".

2.WP No. 1784-P/2023 "Sajid lqbal vs. Seuetary Home & Tribal Affairs and others".

3 WP No. 1785-P/202i "Aimal Khan vs. IG Police KP and others" 4 WP No. 1789-P/2023 "Bashir Ahmad vs. DC Kohat and others" 5 WP No. 1790-P/2023 "Imtioz Shahid Qureshi vs. DC Kohat and others ".

6.WP No. 1791-P/2023 "Daud Shahvs. DC Kohat and others" 7 WP No. 1795-P/2023 "Amjeed Saleem Khanvs. Govt. of KP and others ".

8 WP No. 1796-P/2023 "Muhammad Shoaib vs. DC Peshawar and others ".

9 WP No. 1797-P/2023 "Abid Ullah vs. DC Peshawar and others" 10. WP No. 1798-P/202i "Mansoor vs. DC Peshanar and others" 11 WP No. 1799-P/2023 "shahab-ud-Din vs. DC Peshawar and others "/ 12 WP No. 1800-P/2023 "Fawad Ali and another vs. DC Mardan and others".

13 WP No. lB0I-P/2023 "Saiid lqbal vs. DC Mardan and another". 14 WP No. 1802-P/2023 "Hazrat Umar v.t, DC Mardan and another".

t5 WP No. 1805-P/2023 "Abdur Rehmanvs. Govt, of KP & others".

16.WP No. 1808-P/2023 "Tariq Mehmood Aryani alias Tariq Aryani vs. The State and others".

WP No. 1809-P/2023 "Noor Gul vs. The State and others" 18. WP No. 1810-P/2023 "Asif Khan Ex-MPA PK 76 and other vs Govt. of KP through Chief Seuetary & others" 19 WP No. lSll-P/2023 "Ghulam Ghous vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

20 WP No. 1812-P/202i "Mian Hamayoon Shah vs. DC Nowshera and others".

21 WP No. 1818-P/2023 "Naeemvs. Secretary Home and others". 22 WP No. l8l9- P/2023 "shakeel Khan vs. Secretary Home and others " / 23 WP No. 1826-P/2023 "Shams-ur-Rehman vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

24.WP No. 1827-P/2023 "Shah Khalid vs. The State through AG and others ".

25 WP No. 1828-P/2023 "Zahid vs. The State through AG and others"

26.WP No. 1829-P/2023 "Amanullah vs. The State through AG and others " 27 WP No. 1830-P/2023 "Liaqat Ali vs. The State through AG and / others "

28.WP No. 1831-P/2023 "Mohammad liaz vs. The State through AG and others"

29.WP No. 1833-P/202i "Gulab Noor vs. DPO, Peshawar and others "

30.WP No. 1834-P/2023 "Farhad Qureshi vs. Govt. of KP and others "

a\

v 31 IVP No. 1838-P/2023 "Muhammad Iqbal and another vs. DPO, Peshawar and others".

32 WP No. 1839-P/2023 "Imran vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others"

33.WP No. 1840-P/2023 "Muhommad Zeb y,s. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others" 34 WP No. 1841-P/202 3 "Saqib Khan alias Saqib vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

35 WP No. 1842-P/202 3 "Ibrahim vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others"

36.WP No. 1843-P/2023 "Ishtiaq Ali vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and otlters" a4 J/ WP No. 1844-P/2023 "Fayaz Ahmad y.r. The Deputy Commissioner Swat ond otlters"

38.WP No. 1845-P/2023 "Multammad Shahid vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and otlters" 39 WP No. 1846-P/20 23 "Shahab Ali vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others" 40 WP No. 1847-P/202 3 "Shaukat vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

4I WP No. 1848-P/2023 "Sakhawat vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others"

42.WP No. 1849-P/2023 "Umar Hayat vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swat"

43.WP No. 1850-P/2023 "Zafar Ali vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

44.WP No. 1851-P/2023 "Muslim Khan v.s. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

45 WP No. 1852-P/2023 "Amir lqbal vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others ",

46.WP No. 1853-P/2023 "Mumtaz vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

47.WP No. 1854-P/2023 "Wajid Ali vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Swat and others".

48.WP No. 1855-P/2023 "Khan Bacha ys. The Deputy Commissioner Swat and others" 49 WP No. 1856-P/2023 "Muhammad Shoaib and others vs. Govt. of KP and otlters "

50.WP No. 1857-P/2023 "Muhammad Salih ys. The Deputy Commissioner Swat and others" 51 WP No. 1858-P/2023 "Shah Zeeb vs. The State through AG KP and others".

52.WP No. 1859-P/2023 "Kazim Shahvs. The State and others" 53 WP No. 1860-P/2023 "Alamgir vs. The Deputy Commissioner, / Swat and others".

54.WP No. 1861-P/2023 "Ahmad Ali vs. The State and otlters" 55 WP No. 1862-P/2023 "Muhammad Jehangir vs. The State and / others ".

56.WP No. 1863-P/2023 "Mohammad lbrahim vs. The State and others ".

57.WP No. 1864-P/2023 "Sabir Rahmanvs. The State and others" 58. WP No. l87I-P/2023 "Abdullah vs. The Stote through AG KP and others".

59 WP No. 1872-P/2023 "Husain Ullah vs. The State through AG KP and others".

v

60.WP No. 1873-P/2023 "Moltammad Asad vs. The State through AG KP and others".

61.WP No. 1874-P/2023 "Nazim Hussain vs. The State through AG KP and others".

62.WP No. 1875-P/20 23 "Zaheer-ud-Din Babar y.t The State AG KP ond otlters"

63.WP No. 1876-P/2023 "Zeshan vs. The State through AG Kp and others " 64 WP No. 1877-P/20 23 "Arsalan vs. The State through AG Kp and otllers ".

65 WP No. 1878-P/2023 "Said Jamal vs. The State through AG Kp and others"

66.WP No. 1879-P/2023 "Kamran Ali and others vs. The State AG KP and others"

67.WP No. 18 80-P/2023 "Waleed and others vs. Govt of KP and others"

68.WP No. 1884-P/2023 "Gohar Ali Shah vs. The State through AG KP and others" 69 WP No. 1885-P/2023 "Raham Dad vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi ond others".

70 WP No. 1886-P/2023 "Salman Khan vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

7I WP No. 1887-P/2023 "Gul Bashar vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi ond others".

72 WP No. 1888-P/2023 "Amin Ullah vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

73 WP No. 1889-P/2023 "Etehod Ullah vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

74 WP No. 1890-P/2023 "Fazal Raziq vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

75 WP No. 1891-P/202i "Sanaullah vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others" 76 WP No. 1892-P/2023 "Rahatullah vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

77 WP No. 1893-P/2023 "Abdul Malik vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

78.WP No. 1894-P/2023 "Said Muhammad ys. Deputy Commissioner Swabi and others" 79, WP No. 1895-P/2023 "Sajid Ali vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

80.WP No. 1896-P/2023 "Arab Khan vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others ".

81 WP No. 1897-P/2023 "Liaqat Sher vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

82 WP No. 1898-P/2023 "Arif Khan vs. Deputy Commissioner, Swabi and others".

83 WP No. 1907-P/2023 "Jehan Zeb vs. Govt. and others" / 84 WP No. 1913-P/2023 "Hussain Akbar and another vs. The State AG KP and others" 85 WP No. 1914-P/2023 "Abdul Malikvs. The State through AG KP and others".

86.WP No. 1915-P/2023 "Ajmol Shah vs. The State through AG KP and others".

87 WP No. 1916-P/2023 "Said Mohammad and others vs. The State through AG KP and others".

v

88.WP No. 1920-P/2023 "Habibur Rehman vs. DPO, Mardan and others ".

89 WP No. 1921-P/20 23 "Fazal-ur-Rehman vs. DPO, Mardan and others "

90.WP No. 1922-P/2023 "Mudassir Hussain y,s. The Deputy Commiss loner Nowshera and others" 91 WP No. 1923-P/202 3 "Aizaz vs. The State through AG KP and others " 92 WP No. 1924-P/2023 "Shakeel vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshera and others"

93.WP No. 1925-P/2023 "Inamullah vs. Govt. of KP and otlters" 94. WP No. 1926-P/202 j "Hayat Ali Alias Muhammad Hayat vs. The Commissioner Nowshera and others" 95, WP No. 1927-P/20 23 "Raja Saeedvs. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshero and others"

96.WP No. 1928-P/2023 "Azmat Khan alias Azmat vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowshsera and others "

97.WP No. 1929-P/2023 "Nazim Shah alias Nazim vs. The Deputy Comm Nowshera and others".

98.WP No. 1930-P/2023 "Hasnain Khan alias Hasnain vs. The Commis Nowshera and others" 99 WP No. 1931-P/2023 "Multammod Rafiq and another vs. DC Nowshera and others".

100.WP No. 1934-P/2023 "Sufyan and another vs. Secretary Home & Tribal Af.fairs and others".

101 WP No. 1935-P/2023 "Riaz Muhammad and others vs. Govt. of KP througlt Secretary Home & others".

102 WP No. l9i7-P/2023 "Waqas Khqn vs. Deputy Commissioner and others".

t03 WP No. 1938-P/2023 "Sulaiman vs. The State through AG KP and others".

104 WP No. 1939-P/2023 "Ali Gohar and others vs. The State through AG KP and others".

105 WP No. 1940-P/2023 "Sanan lqbal vs. The State through AG KP and others".

106 WP No. 1941-P/202j "Amjid Ali vs. The State through AG KP and others".

I 07. WP No. 1942-P/2023 "Gul Habib vs. The State through AG KP and others".

r08. WP No. 1943-P/2023 "Ijaz Ahmad and others vs. The State AG KP ond others"

109.WP No. 1944-P/2023 "Muhammad Shah Saud vs. Govt. of KP and others".

I 10. WP No. 1945-P/2023 "Maaz Ullah alias Maaz vs. The State and others".

111 WP No. 1947-P/2023 "Saddam Hussain vs. Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs and others".

/ 112 WP No. 1948-P/2023 "Nasir vs. Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs and others".

113 WP No. 1949-P/2023 "Shehzad vs. DPO, Mardan and others" I 14. WP No. 1952-P/2023 "Ashad Khan alias Arshadvs. Govt. of KP and others".

115 WP No. 1953-P/2023 "Adnanvs. Govt. of KP and others" I 16. WP No. 1954-P/2024 "Muhammad Arif alias Arif vs. The DC Nowshera and others".

v I r7. WP No. 1955-P/2023 "Habibullah vs. DPO, Pesha\yar and others ".

I 18. WP No. 1956-P/2023 "Muhammad Iqbal vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

I 19. WP No. 1959-P/2023 "Faizanvs. Govt. and others" 120 WP No. I 960-P/202 3 Bilal v,t. Govt. of KP thro ugh Chief ond others"

121.WP No. l96l-P/2023 "Haji Zarb Ullah and another vs. The State AG KP and others" 122 WP No. 1962-P/2023 "Farooq Hussain y.r. The State and others ".

I 23. WP No. 1972-P/2023 "Atif Khan alias Atif Noor vs. The State AG KP and others" 124 WP No. 1973-P/2023 "Mudassir vs. The State through AG Kp and others" 125 WP No. 1974-P/202j "Hussan Ul Wahab vs. The State through AG KP and others".

I 26. WP No. 1975-P/2023 "Nasir Khanvs. The State through AG Kp and others".

127 WP No. 1976-P/2023 "Abid Khan vs. The State through AG Kp and others" I 28. WP No. 1977-P/2023 "Bilal vs. The State through AG Kp and others ".

I 29. WP No. 1978-P/202i "Hazrat Hussain vs. The State through AG KP and otlters".

I 30. WP No. 1979-P/2023 "Sajjod Ahmad vs. The State through AG KP and others".

131.WP No. 1980-P/2023 "Muhammad Abu Bakar vs. Govt. of KP and others" 132 WP No. 1981-P/2023 "Muhammad Ismail vs. The State and others ".

133 WP No. 1982-P/2023 "Sabzali vs.The State and others" 134 WP No. 1984-P/2023 "Abdul Malikvs. The State" 135 WP No. 1985-P/2023 "Jawadvs. The State and others" 136 WP No. 1986-P/2023 "Shafat Jan and others y^r. Deputy Commissioner Swabi and others" 137 WP No. 1987-P/2023 "Sikandar Shah vs. The State through AG KP and others".

I 38. WP No. 1988-P/2023 "Ali Akbar vs. The State through AG KP and others".

139 WP No. 1989-P/2023 "Mohammad Baseer vs. The State through AG KP and others".

140.WP No. 1990-P/2023 "Fazli Wahab vs. The State through AG KP and others".

f 141 WP No. 1991-P/2023 "Mohammad Riazvs. The State throughAG KP and others".

142 WP No. 2001-P/2023 "Ahmad Ali vs. The State through AG KP / and others".

143 WP No. 2002-P/2023 "Momtaz Ali vs. The State through AG KP and others".

144.WP No. 2003-P/202i "Saud Khan vs. The State through AG KP and others".

145 WP No. 2004-P/2023 "Yasir Khan vs. The State through AG KP and others".

146.WP No. 2005-P/2023 "Mohammad Jehangir ys. The State AG KP and others"

I 47, WP No. 2008-P/2023 Khan vs. Govt. KP and others".

148.WP No. 2009- P/2023 "Waqas Khan Shinwari vs. The State and others " 149 WP No. 201 3 "Yasin Sher Bahadar vs. Secretary Home & others ".

150 WP No. 2014-P/2023 "Ismail Khan vs. DPO, Peshm,yar and otlters ".

151.WP No. 2015-P/2023 "Usama vs. Govt. of KP through Secretary Home and otlters" 152 WP No. 2017-P/2023 "Kafeel Ahmad vs. Secretary Home and others ".

153 WP No. 2018-P/2023 "Intizar Mohammod vs. The State through AG KP and others".

I 54. WP No. 2021-P/2023 "Waqas vs. Govt. of KP through Chief ond others ".

155 WP No. 2031-P/2023 "Junaid and others vs. Govt. of Kp through Home & others".

I 56. WP No. 2037-P/2023 "Nouman vs. Govt. of Kp through Chief Secretary & others".

I 57. WP No. 2038-P/2023 "Saleem Jan vs. Govt. of KP and others" I 58. WP No. 2043-P/2023 "Noor Ullah and another vs. Govt. of KP through Chief & others" I 59, WP No. 2044-P/2023 "Malik Amjad Ali Khan ys. Govt. of KP through Chief Secretary & others".

160.WP No. 2045-P/202i "Munawar Shah vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

161 WP No. 2046-P/2023 "Nouman Khan Khattak vs. Govt. of KP and others".

162 WP No. 2047-P/2023 "Ibrar and others vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

163.WP No. 2053-P/2023 "Daud Khanvs. DPO Peshanar & others" 164 WP No. 2055-P/2023 "Iiaz Ahmadvs. Govt. of KPK & others" 165 WP No. 2056-P/2023 "Muhammad Farmanvs. Govt. of KPK" 166 WP No. 2057-P/2023 "Muhammad Ishaq vs. Deputy Commissioner and others ".

167 WP No. 2062-P/2023 "Shahid Rehman y^t The Deputy Commissioner, Hongu and others".

r 68. WP No. 2063-P/2023 "Muhammad Bilal ys. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

I 69. WP No. 2064-P/2023 "Ziaur Rehman vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and otlters".

I 70. WP No. 2065-P/2023 "Haseeb Ahmad ys. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others", 171 WP No. 2066-P/2023 "Azizullah vs. The Deputy Commissioner,

A

Hongu and others".

172 WP No. 2067-P/2023 "Noor Alam vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

173 WP No. 2068-P/2023 "Iqtadar Ali Bangash vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

I 74. WP No. 2069-P/2023 "Muhammad Saeed Khan vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

175 WP No. 2070-P/2023 "Habibur Rehman y.r. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

I 76. WP No. 2071-P/2023 "Muhammad ys. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

177.WP No. 2072-P/2023 "Muhammad Imtiaz vs. The State"

I 78. WP No. 2073-P/2023 "Hazrot (Jmar y,s. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and otlters".

179.WP No. 2074-P/2 023 "Rab Nawaz vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others"

180.WP No. 2075-P/2023 "Muhammad Wazir yr The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

181 WP No. 2076-P/2023 "Basir Ahmad Khan vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

182 WP No. 2077-P/2023 "Maqbool Ahmad ys. The Deputy Comm and others" t83 WP No. 2078-P/2023 "Asmot Ullah y.r. The Deputy Commissioner, and others"

184.WP No. 2079-P/202j "Saif Ulahvs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

185 WP No. 2080-P/2023 "shahid Ullah vr. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

186 WP No. 2081-P/202i "Farmanullah ys. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others" 187 WP No. 2082-P/2023 "Kamron Khan vr. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

188.WP No. 2085-P/2023 "Saeed Orakzai vr. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu and others".

189 WP No. 2090-P/2023 "Salman Khon vs. DPO, Peshawar and others ".

190 WP No. 2091-P/2023 "Arsala Khanvs. Govt. of KP and otlters" 191 WP No. 2092-P/202 3 "Wasifvs. Govt. of KPK. 192 WP No. 2094-P/2023 " Muhammad Wasimvs. Govt. of KPK" 193 WP No. 209 5-P/2023 "Tahir Ullahvs. Govt. of KP and others" 194. WP No. 2098-P/2023 "Junaid y^t District Police Oficer, Peshawar and others".

195 WP No. 2099-P/2023 "Muhammad Saleem y.r. Deputy Commis sioner, P eshowar ".

196.WP No. 2100-P/2023 "Muhammad Habib vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

197 WP No. 2l0l-P/2023 "Abdul Hakeem ys. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

198.WP No. 2102-P/2023 "Sadiq ur Rehman y,r. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangtt ".

I99 WP No. 2103-P/2023 "Wilayat Shah v^r. The Deputy Commissioner, Hanglt ".

200.WP No. 2104-P/2023 "Rab Nawaz vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hongu".

201 WP No. 2105-P/2023 "Spin Badshah yJ. The Deputy Commissioner, Hengu".

202.WP No. 2106-P/2023 "Ismail Khan y.s. The Deputy * Commissioner, Hangu".

203 WP No. 2107-P/202j "Saif Ullahvs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

204.WP No. 2108-P/2023 "Abbas Khan y,s. The Deputy Commissioner, Hongu".

20s WP No. 2109-P/2023 "Sadiq Nawaz y.r. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

206.WP No. 2l l0-P/2023 "Fazal Hameed v,s. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

207.WP No. 2111-P/2023 "Farmanullah Khan vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

,r

208 WP No. 2 1 26-P/2023 "Shahid vs. Govt. KPK'' 209 WP No. 2127-P/2023 "Abuzar vs Govt.

2 10. WP No. 2128-P/2023 "Talib Shah vs. Govt. of Kp through Chief Secretary and others " 211 WP No. 2129-P/2023 "Arbab Jehandad Khan and others vs Govt. KP and others" 212 WP No. 2130-P/2023 "Abu Zar vs. Govt. KP and others" 213 WP No. 2138-P/2023 "Rehan Khanvs. Govt, KPK'' 214. WP No. 2140-P/2023 "Muhammad (Jmar vs. The DC Hangu and others ".

215 WP No. 2I4l-P/202j "Shaukat Hayat vs. The DC, Hangu and others " 216 WP No. 2142-P/2023 "Amir Khan vs. The DC, Hangu and other ".

217 WP No. 2143-P/2023 "Muqid Ullah alias Safeer Ullah vs. Govt. of KP and others".

218.WP No. 2144-P/2023 "Mohammad Riaz vs. The State through AG KP and others".

2r9 WP No. 2151-P/2023 "Asad Ali vs. Govt. of KP through Chief Secretary & others".

220 WP No. 2152-P/2023 "Faheem Dunoni vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

221 WP No. 2154-P/2023 "Arshad Khan vs. Govt. of KP through Chief & others" 222 WP No. 2156-P/2023 "Abu Bakar Siddique vs. Govt. of KP and otlrers ".

223 WP No. 2157-P/2023 "Zuboir vs. Govt. of KP and others" 224 WP No. 2l5B-P/2023 "Affindyar vs. Govt. of KP and others" 225. WP No. 2167-P/2023 "Abdul Haleem vs. The DC Nowshera and others ".

226.WP No. 2171-P/2023 "Hamid Alamvs. Govt. of KPK". 227 WP No.2173-P/2023 "Noor Ullahvs. Govt. of KP and others".

228.WP No. 2176-P/2023 "Hayat Noor vs. Govt. of KP and others" 229 WP No. 2184-P/2023 "Iqrar vs. Govt. of KP and others" 230. WP No. 2202-P/2023 "Syed Ali Shah vs. The State through AG KP and others".

23t WP No. 2205-P/2023 "Zakir Ullah vs. Govt. of KP and others" 23 2. WP No. 22lj-P/2023 "Muhammad Jalal vs. The State through AG KP and others".

233 WP No. 2219-P/2023 "Sohail vs. Govt. of KP and others" 234 WP No. 2220-P/2023 "Said Hussain vs. Govt. of KP and others" 23 5, WP No. 2221-P/202i "Muhammod Asif vs. Govt. of KP and others ".

236.WP No. 2244-P/2023 "Muhammad Uzair vs. The State through AG KP and others".

237.WP No. 2245-P/2023 "Sadiq Shah vs. The DC, Hangu and others ".

238.WP No. 2246-P/2023 "Muhammad Rwais vs. DC Hansu etc" 239 WP No. 2247-P/2023 "Khiyal Muhammad vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hangu".

240.WP No. 2248-P/2023 "Idrees Khan y,s. The Deputy Commissioner, Hangu".

241 WP No. 2249-P/2023 "Adeel Muhammad and others vs. Govt. of KP through Secretary Home & others".

242 WP No. 2256-P/2023 "Amir Shah vs. Govt. of KP through Chief Secretary and others".

t-,

243 WP No. 2257-P/2023 Akbar vs. The State and others"

244. I

WP No. 2 8 3 P/20 2 3 "Amir Khan y,t. Govt. KP and others"

245 I

WP No. 2 8 7- P/202 3 " Ilcram Ullah and another YJ Govt. of KP Home & others"

246.WP No. 2222-P/2023 "Abdul Ghafoor vs. The State and others" Nawab Shah CS (DB) Justice lshtiag lbrahim & Justice Syod Arshad Ali