[Ordinance XXXI OF 1960]
Law to be construed strictly as it makes serious inroad into the liberty of a citizen. Requirements for the satisfaction of the government are limitations to ensure that due care, caution and attention is exercised before a citizen is deprived of his liberty. (DB) PLD 1973 Lah. 337. Rafiq Ahmad.
Provisions of section 8 ultra vires as they offend against the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly granted by the Constitution. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 642. Nasar Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate.
Public meeting--Defined. A public meeting is that which is open to the public, or a class or portion of the public in its capacity as such. An Executive Committee meeting of a political party will not be a public meeting within the meaning of section 8 of the ordinance. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 642 Nasrullah Khan v. D.M.
Jurisdiction--Order passed "under the Ordinance" order justified by the ordinance" section 28 of the ordinance does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court. (FB) PLD 1963 Lah. 109 Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West Pakistan.
Opportunity of being heard to person affected by or in respect of whom an order is passed under the Ordinance is not contemplated by the Ordinance. (DB) PLD 1967 Kar. 408. Abid Ali etc. v. Government of West Pakistan.
"Satisfaction" of authority passing order must be based on conscious application of mind to all the material necessary and not merely on the report of the District Magistrate. (DB) PLD 1967 Kar. 408 Abid Ali etc. v. Government of West Pakistan.
Satisfaction, not to be pretended. Courts are entitled to be satisfied that the material leading to satisfaction of detaining authorities should reasonably lead to such satisfaction. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 344. Abdul Hamid Khan.
Mere production of order of detaining authority in proof of satisfaction for detention u/S. 3 of W.P. Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960 is not enough. Court can ask the executive authority to disclose the reasons for its satisfaction for detention. (DB) PLD 1990 Kar. 470. Mrs. Majeeda Fatima.
Satisfaction: reasonable person should be satisfied as to the necessity of making the detention order. Satisfaction should be regarding each one of the grounds of detention. If one ground is bad, non-existent or irrelevant the whole order of detention is invalid. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78 Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sindh etc.
Satisfaction, whether suspicion reasonable is justiciable, burden lies on arresting officer to justify arrest by revealing reasonable grounds to satisfy "Judicial conscience." Held, arrest "bad from very inception" where no reasonable grounds were revealed. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 286 Government of West Pakistan v. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya.
Satisfaction of S.P. Police and not that of District Magistrate himself on which order passed; held, order not legal and set aside. PLD 1978 Lah. 223 Muhammad Ishaq v. D.M. Sheikhupura.
District Magistrate making order on the asking of S.P. and not applying his mind independently and failing to satisfy even the most normal standards of satisfaction, his action would amount to legal mala fides and the detenu would be entitled to costs. When the District Magistrate (i) did not examine any material leading him to conclusion that the detenu was likely to act in any particular manner (ii) did not apply his independent mind qua detention (iii) acted on mere asking of Superintendent of Police, the detention order was set aside as being without lawful authority. PLJ 1977 Lah. 497 Muhammad Ishaq v. D.M.
ADM not authorised under M.P.O. Ordinance to pass detention order. Power cannot be delegated. PLJ 1988 Lah. 425 Mst. Shazia Parveen v. D.M. Okara PLD 1988 Lah. 611.
Satisfaction of Government not subjective. (Section 3 of Ordinance XXXI of 1960). Person detained has right to challenge grounds. Proceedings before the board are amenable to judicial review. Board cannot consider new grounds, not previously communicated to detenu. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 210. Government of West Pakistan v. Haider Bakhsh Jatoi etc.
Sufficiency of grounds is not justiciable but Courts are competent to examine whether the grounds fall within the ambit of the Ordinance. Detention for criticism of administration held, without lawful authority. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 135. Farid Ahmed v. Government of West Pakistan.
Reference to Provincial Government. Whether the delegation of power under section 26 of the Ordinance renders ineffective the requirement of section 3(2). Held, the D.M. should first refer the matter to the Provincial Government on whose satisfaction District Magistrate should arrest such person. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali.
Governor not taking the advice of council of ministers before making the order but acting on the advice of Home Secretary. Held, order suffered from serious legal infirmities. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali.
Deputy Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate Karachi is not a District Magistrate and hence order of detention by him is illegal. (DB) PLD 1975 Kar. 891. Aziz Nazir v. D.C. and A.D.M. Karachi.
"No one to be judge in its own cause"--The principle applies to the proceedings under the ordinance. Relations between the petitioner and respondent District Magistrate strained, therefore, on account of the principle of natural justice, the District Magistrate could not strain Judgment against the petitioner. The justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done. Order quashed. (DB) PLD 1967 Pesh. 196 Sher Muhammad Khan v. D.M. Mardan etc.
Whether detention mala fide. The onus is on the detenu to show that the order of detention is mala fide exercise of power by the Government. (DB) PLD 1967 Kar. 282. Mairaj v. D.M. Larkana etc. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 344. Abdul Hamid.
Non-service of detention order on detenu does not by itself invalidated order of detention. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 344. Abdul Hamid v. D.M. Larkan.
Detention for a definite period. Order of detention invalid if detention is ordered to commence from date of service of order of detention for a definite period. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 694. Muhammad Younas.
Grounds of detention not relatable to purpose of preventive detention, therefore, non-existent. Order of detention held, mala fide. The posters distributed when examined by Court found not likely to incite general public to commit violence or breach of peace. (DB) PLD 1966 Kar. 260 Abuzar v. Province of West Pakistan.
Detention under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance; W.P. Ord. XXXI of 1960  set aside in writ jurisdiction on  the ground that registration of a large number of cases (29 cases in this case) do not  justify the detention order, held, there should be material  available that action of such individual is prejudicial  to  public order and safety.  Every individual has a right to defend himself in cases registered against him. PLJ 1997 Lah. 117, Mst. Wallan v. Mr. Hassan Nawaz Tarar, District Magistrate.
Order of detention under W.P.M.P. Order Ordinance cannot be sustained when: (a) it is vague, (b) it is passed with mala fide intention, (c) it is passed without judicial application of mind, (d) in its support no material is produced or material produced is insufficient. (DB) PLD 1990 Kar. 470. Mst. Majeeda Fatima.
Vague and general grounds cannot be made basis of detention under M.P.O. Ordinance. Detention order, held, unlawful. PLD 1988 Kar. 275. Zafar Iqbal Papu v. D.M. Karachi.
Ground not to be vague and indefinite, they should enable the detenu to make his representation. Grounds should be within the law prescribed for preventive detention. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 694. Muhammad Younas.
Ground of detention not giving details because of which detenu unable to make proper representation. Held, detention order bad. Supra.
Grounds vague and unlawful. Detention order narratory in character and not giving particulars or details or any specific instance of imputed conduct. Held, grounds vague and could not enable detenu to make effective representation. Order quashed. Grounds of detention comprising some unlawful grounds. Lawful grounds cannot validate otherwise invalid detention order. One good ground cannot validate invalid detention. PLD 1975 Lah. 414. Muhammad Anwar v. D.M. Rawalpindi.
Grounds: charges of substantive offences pending trial in Courts. Detenu facing trial in criminal Courts for substantive offence. Held, not open to administration in such case to use such charges also as ground of preventive detention. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 694. Muhammad Younas.
Past actions. Preventive detention cannot be used to punish a person for his past actions. However, past conduct of a person can be the basis of satisfaction for detention. (DB) PLD 1973 Karachi 344. Abu Hamid v. D.M. Larkana etc.
Detention under West Pak. M.P.O.O. not justified when there is no apprehension of any act prejudicial to the general public peace and order. The case of breach of peace or an act concerning a particular person is not covered by the Ordinance. Detention Order set aside. PLJ 1994 S.C. 393, Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Govt of Punjab.
Grounds: one ground bad out of several grounds would render the detention order illegal. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 605. Muhammad Younas. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali.
Communication of ground "as soon as may be"; grounds must be communicated on date of order. As soon as may be under Section  5(5) of the Ordinance means not later than 24 hours. (DB) PLD 1976 Pesh. 195 Ghulam Ullah Khan v. D.M. (DB) PLJ 1978 Kar. 342 Benazir Bhutto v. Government of Sindh.
Ground of detention not conveyed "as Soon as my be". Detenu arrested on 11-6-1988, grounds conveyed on 29-6-1988, held, provisions of M.P.O.O. not complied with. Detention, held, unlawful. PLJ 1989 Lah. 101 Mst. Sharam Mai v. D.M. PLJ 1989 Lah. 103 Abdul Ghani v. D.M. PLJ 1989 Lah. 104 = Qadar Bakhsh v. Shaukat Ali etc. NLR 1989 Civil 206 Muhammad Sharif v. D.M.
"As soon as may be" No hard and fast rule can be laid down, as to within which time grounds should be furnished, However, inordinate delay contravenes Section 3 (6). (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali.
Communication of grounds. "Soon as may be" in majority of cases means simultaneously with or soon after order is made. Delay of 35 days not satisfactorily explained. Held, communication of grounds subsequently cannot validate order bad in law for want of supply of grounds. (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 1324 Muhammad Aslam v. Province of West Pakistan.
"As soon as may be". Grounds of detention served after 15 days. Held, order of detention invalid. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 694 Muhammad Younas.
M.P.O.O. "As soon as may be", unexplained delay of 6 days in supplying grounds of detention. Held, order without lawful authority. 1979 P.Cr.LJ 62 Miss Benazir Bhutto v. D.M. Karachi.
Grounds of detention not supplied as soon as possible, order of detention becomes illegal and without lawful authority. (DB) PLD 1976 Kar. 448. Hakim Khan v. Government of Sindh. PLJ 1976 Kar. 398.
Under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960, grounds of detention must precede detention order, therefore the grounds of detention must be supplied to the detenu alongwith the detention order. Detention order quashed as grounds not supplied in time. NLR 1988 Civil 1. Ghulam Ahmed v. Govt. of Sindh etc.
Delay in supply of grounds. 11 days between detention and supply of grounds to detenu and no reason shown for such delay. Order of detention under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance held invalid and quashed. (DB) PLD 1977 Kar. 523. Muhammad v. Government of Sindh.
Grounds of detention to be supplied to the detenu alongwith the detention order, but the time taken to supply the grounds may vary according to facts of each case. PLD 1988 Kar. 237. Ghulam Ahmed v. Govt. of Sindh.
Grounds not supplied. Order of detention is vitiated. Order merely stating that detenu had delivered inflammatory speech without disclosing place and occasion order invalid, (DB) PLD 1963 Lah. 67. Nek Amal v. Political Agent, Malakand etc.
to the detenu to enable him to make a representation, held, detention order invalid. (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 109 Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West Pakistan.
Writ of Habeas Corpus, under the constitution is competent even before the case of the detenu is referred to the board. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 135 Farid Ahmed v. Government of West Pakistan.
Habeas Corpus petition filed. The detenu brought before the Court and set at liberty because making a peaceful demonstration was a democratic right of the petitioners and no grounds found to exist for depriving the detenus of their personal liberty. PLD 1975 Lah. 1321 Ehsan Ullah v. Home Secretary, Government of Punjab.
Interim release order. The High Court is competent to pass interim release order in a Habeas Corpus petition under the Constitution. But power to grant bail under Section 491, Cr.P.C. is not available. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 383. Zafar Iqbal v. Province of Sindh etc.
Person already in custody cannot be ordered to furnish a bond for good behaviour under section 5(1) of the Ordinance. (DB) PLD 1975 Pesh. 67 Nek Amal v. Political Agent, Malakand etc.
Extension of detention under illegal order is illegal. PLD 1961 Pesh. 102 Masum.
Removal from district under clauses (a) and (c) of section 5 (1) is illegal being contrary to proviso to sub-section (4). PLD 1965 Lah. 418. Hakim Ali v. D.M. Lahore.
Removal from ordinary residence. (Section 5(1)(c) & 5(4) of Ordinance XXXI of 1960) Person residing at place for 20 years for gain, held, resides at his ordinary residence and cannot be extended from there. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 273. Muhammad Noor v. D.M. Peshawar.
Restriction of movements within a specified area amounts to detention for all practical purposes. (Section 5 (1) of Ordinance XXXI of 1960). (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 1324 Muhammad Aslam v. Province of West Pakistan.
Criticism of Government Policies in general and detention of political leaders in particular by Public speeches or press or carrying placards peacefully not intending to incite Public to violence, case not covered under section 16 of Ordinance XXXI of 1960. PLD 1972 Lah. 177. Mehraj Din etc.
Order prohibiting publication of newspaper. (Section 6 (1) of Ordinance) Order effective for two months not from date of service of order but from date of making of order. (DB) PLD 1974 Kar. 31. Azad Papers v. Province of Sindh etc.
Delegation of powers under section 26 of the ordinance can be conferred on District Magistrate and not on Additional Deputy Commissioner. PLD 1975 Lah. 4 Muhammad Aslam v. D.M. Lahore.
For preventive detention pendency of a criminal case cannot form a basis for it. PLJ 1997 Lah 214, Muhammad Mushtaq v. D.M. Sheikhupura etc.
Involvement of Hudood case is not a valid ground for detention under M.P.O.O. NLR 1989 Civil 207, Mst. Bashiran v. D.M.
Involvement in a number of criminal cases per se is not a valid ground for preventive detention under sec. 3(1) of W.P.M.P.O. Ordinance 1960. PLJ 1997 Lah 146, Muhammad Yasin v. Dist. Magistrate Kasur.
Acquittal in 7 criminal cases does not justify action against the petitioner under W.P. Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. There must be material before authority to act upon it to justify order of detention. Availability of alternative remedy of representation to Government against detention order does not fetter the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. PLJ 1997 Lah. 1652, Muhammad Azim v. District Magistrate.
Accused involved in 5 cases, acquitted in 3, pending 2, held, is no ground for detention u/S. 3, M.P.O.O. NLR 1989 Cr. 312. Aziz Mai v. D.M. Bahawalpur.
Isolated Act of smuggling does not warrant in order of detention under section 3 of the Ordinance. Preventive detention and punitive detention distinguished. (DB) PLD 1976 Kar. 355. Muhammad Amin v. Province of Sindh. (DB) PLD 1976 Kar. 306 Muhammad Amin v. Sindh.
16 months old charge of smuggling with no fresh material showing that the detenu was likely to repeat the offence cannot be ground for detention. (DB) PLD 1976 Kar. 311 Masood Ahmad v. Government of Sindh.
Membership of Association (Jamaat). Mere membership of an Association found guilty of prejudicial activities is no ground for detention under section 3 of the ordinance. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 112. Rehmat Elahi v. Government of West Pakistan.
Protest over rise in prices is a democratic right. Intention to stage a peaceful demonstration, otherwise permissible is not a justifiable ground for detention. PLD 1975 Lah. 1321 Ehsan Ullah v. Home Secretary etc.
Preventive detention under W.P. M.P.O. Ordinance XXXI of 1960 is not justified when the ground relates to the commission of a substantive offence by the detenu. The ordinance is for the person whose acts are prejudicial to the public order, safety of the public at large and not for particular individual cases. 1994 SCMR 1532, Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Govt. of the Punjab, through Home Secretary. PLJ 1994 SC 393.
Bail allowed for offence u/S. 16 M.P.O.O. as the FIR did not contain the words which the petitioner and the other processionists uttered during the incident. Mere raising of slogans, which is a political norm does not fall within the mischief of Sec. 16 MPOO. (DB) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah) 1512, Muhammad Aamar.
An FIR u/Ss. 506, 186, 148, 149/109 PPC registered against the petitioner cannot form the basis for preventive detention under M.P.O.O. 1960. PLJ 1997 Pesh 10, Syed Mehr Ali Shah v. D.M. Mansehra.
Tangible, concrete, substantial evidence and instances to warrant detention of persons concerned not disclosed in the order of District magistrate. Order of detention set aside. Even High Court was not taken into confidence about the secret reports against the persons detained under the West Pakistan Maintenance Hussain Shah v. District Magistrate Attock. 
An act which concerns only an individual does not amount to an activity prejudicial to public peace and tranquility and cannot fall within the ambit of Sec. 3 of the Ordinance (XXXI of 1960). West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order. Allegation which a person has faced in a trial and was either convicted or acquitted can never form basis for preventive detention. (DB) PLD 1997 Pesh. 148, Masal Khan v. Dist. Magistrate Pehsawar. PLJ 1997 Pesh 201.
Act not prejudicial to public at large but concerns only an individual does not amount to an activity prejudicial to public peace and tranquility and does not fall within the ambit of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960. (DB) PLD 1997 Pesh. 201; Masal Khan v. District Magistrate Peshawar, etc.
An act concerning only one individual is not prejudicial to Public Peace or tranquility and as such does not fall in the ambit of Section 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1990. Detenu set at liberty. PLD 1998 Kar. 367 Ghulam Muhammad v. Province of Sindh.