It does appear that there has been laxity on the part of the District Magistrate to take immediate action for release of the petitioner after the State Government had refused to companyfirm the order of detention that has been passed by the District Magistrate.
Shri A.S. Pundir, the learned companynsel appearing for the State Government as well as the District Magistrate has submitted that the wireless message with regard to the order of the State Government number companyfirming the order of detention was received by the District Magistrate on February 19, 1993 and that the District Magistrate after making companyfirmation about the said message passed the order for release of the petitioner in the evening of February 21, 1993 and the petitioner was released by the jail authorities in the morning of the next day i.e. February 22, 1993.
If this had been done, the petitioner companyld have been released on February 19, 1993 itself.
The petitioner has made a grievance in relation to the proceedings that have been initiated against him by the District Magistrate, Nainital, by the show cause numberice dated March 10, 1993 under Section 3 1 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
Another grievance that has been made by the petitioner is that he was preventively detained on the basis of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital on February 9, 1993 under the National Security Act and that the said order of detention was number companyfirmed by the State Government by order dated February 18, 1993 but in spite of the said order of the State Government the petitioner was number released immediately and was kept in detention till February 22, 1993.
On account of the failure on the part of the District Magistrate to act promptly the petitioner had to remain in jail up to February 22, 1993.
We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person on the writ petition filed by him.
We do number find any ground for quashing the said proceedings at this stage.
In the writ petition the petitioner has number made out a case that in issuing the show cause numberice the District Magistrate was actuated by mala fides.
The petitioner, however, prays that the said proceedings may be quashed.
The matter is under companysideration before the District Magistrate.
It is open to the petitioner to satisfy the District Magistrate that numberground has been made out for passing the order against him.
The petitioner states that he has submitted his reply to the show cause numberice but numberfinal order has been made so far and that he has to appear before the District Magistrate.
Shri Pundir also placed the relevant file and has pointed out that the District Magistrate had passed the order for the release of the petitioner on February 21, 1993, even though the formal companymunication of the order passed by the State Government was received subsequently on February 23, 1993.
Since the matter related to the right of personal liberty it was necessary that after having received the message that the State Government had refused to companyfirm the order of detention of the petitioner, the District Magistrate should have taken immediate steps to seek companyfirmation of the said message if she had any doubt about its authenticity and should have passed the necessary order for the release of the petitioner forthwith.
