usual or ordinary way and right to access by workers, servants or employees to working tools or information whilst at work, with due respect to the petitioner's counsel, we find that his generalized submissions did not clarify on how the provision has impaired those rights. Nevertheless, we found it strange that the learned counsel until the time of hearing of this petition seemed to have been unaware that the restricted areas under the impugned provisions fall under the Protected Places and Areas Act, of 1969 with overarching objectives to protect public rights. Actually, that objective is akin to the one provided for under section 4(1) of the National Security Act (supra) which was enacted in 1970, that is, 32 years before the enactment of POTA in 2002. That section reads: "4. (1) any person who has in his possession or under his control anv code, password, sketch, plan, model, note or other document, article or information, which relates to or is used in a protected place or anything in such a placef or which has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act, or which has been entrusted in confidence to him bv anv person holding a public office, or which he has obtained or to which he has had access owing to his position as a person who holds or has held such office or as a person who is or was a party to a contract with the Government..., (a) N/A...; or (b) N/A...; or (c) N/A....; or (d) retains the sketch, planr model, note, document or article in his possession or under his control when he has no right or when it is contrary to his duty so to do. or fails to comply with any lawful directions with regard to the return or disposal thereof. shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years." [Emphasis added] In view of the above, having considered the wordings of section 9(1) of POTA and general allegations mounted against it in the light of the guiding Page 27 of 37