Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NATHANIAL NAZ versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT


Section 5 (1) to state that a restraining order under section 5 (1) should be presented without any substance and grounds being vague, without the permission of section 5 (1) guaranteeing any content. The exact order of disclosure cannot be established. And Applicable Constitutional Order (PO 1 of 1981), Article 9, prior to the announcement of the Home Secretary Order of the District Magistrate without legality to the applicant who is legally required to approve the order. ?

P L D 1983 Lahore 244

Before Irshad Hassan Khan, J

NATHANIAL NAZ-Petitioner

versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER- Respondents

Writ Petition No. 123 of 1983, herd on 23rd January, 1983.

(a) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXIV of 1960)-

-- S. 5(1)-Contention that order of restriction passed by District Magistrate under S. 5(1) without furnishing any material and grounds therein being vague, cannot form basis of valid order-Order disclosing no material warranting invocation of provisions of S. 5(1) and grounds leading to passing of order not particularized enabling petitioner to make statutory representation before Home Secretary-Order of District Magistrate declared without lawful authority, set aside Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 9.

(b) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXIV of 1960)-

-- S. 5(l)-Ground vague or otherwise-Test : Determination whether an effective representation, apart from a bare denial of accusation, can be made by a person against whom order. under S. 5 has been made.

(c) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXIV of 1960)-

S. 5 (1)-No grounds at all been given for passing order-High Court, held, setting aside order without expressing any opinion on merits-Provisional Constitution Order (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 9.

Syed Muhammad Saqlain Jaffary for Petitioner.

Raashid Aziz Khan, Add]. A.-G. for Respondent No. 1.

Ch. Muhammad Bashir Chauhan for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 3rd January, 1983.

JUDGEMENT

This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, calls in question the order, dated 13-12-1.982, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, whereby the restrictee, Nathanial Naz, was ordered not to enter, reside or remain within the revenue limits of Sialkot District, for a period of two months, under section 5(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the "Ordinance") as without lawful authority.

2. The impugned order reads thus :

"Whereas 1, Shaukat Ali Rana, Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, am satisfied with respect to Mr. N. Naz, Councillor (on Minority Seat), resident of Mohallah Machine, Jhelum City with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of. public order, it is necessary to make an order as hereinafter appearing.

(2) Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, I, Shaukat Ali Rana, Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, direct that the said Mr. N. Naz, Councillor (on Minority Seat), resident of Moballah Machine, Jhelum City shall not enter, reside or remain within the revenue limits of Sialkot District.

(3) This order shall take effect from 13th December, 1982 and shall remain in force for a period of two months.

(4) Given under my band and the Seal of the Court this 13th day of December, 1982.

(Sd.)

Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot."

The petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the grounds taken therein are vague and do not furnish an material and, therefore, such grounds cannot form the basis of a valid order under the Ordinance. A bare reading of the impugned order would show that it discloses no material warranting invocation of the provisions of section 5(1)(a) of the Ordinance, and the grounds which led to the passing of the impugned order have not been particularized to enable him to make an effective statutory representation to the Home Secretary. The test to determine whether particular ground is vague or otherwise is whether an effective representation, apart from a bare denial of accusation, can be made by the person I against whom an order has been passed under section 5 of the Ordinance. In the instant case, not to speak of vague grounds, no grounds at all have bee given .for passing the impugned order: This being so, without expressing any opinion on the merits .of the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.

3. In view of the above, the writ petition is accepted with costs and the impugned order, dated 13th of December, 1982, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot, is. hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
pakistani advocates Samundri lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.