MUHAMMAD DIN Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

ORDER

1. District Magistrate Narowal acceding to the request of the Superintendent of Police enshrined in memo. No.6133 of 18‑9‑1991 requiring detention of Muhammad Nawaz, the within mentioned detenu, under Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 opining him to be a bad character and anti‑social element having been involved in two criminal cases registered vide F.I.Rs. No.61 of 14‑10‑1967 under section 325/34, P.P.C. Police Station Shah Garib and No.58 of 9‑6‑1990 under section 307/34, P.P.C. Police Station Noor Kot, issued the impugned detention order dated 19‑9‑1991 for 60 days, legality whereof has been assailed in these proceedings, wherein it is patently demonstrated from the record produced by the latter that the District Magistrate adhering to the S.P's. request if not dictate, has acted purely mechanically without application of independent judicial mind when visualised in the attending spectrum, viz., the opinion of the police official qua characteristics of the detenu remain unsubstanted thus seems to be self‑assumed subjective notion and alleged involvement in criminal cases one of which happens to be ancient by quarter of a century per se hardly funishes justification for stripping off a citizen of his liberty under the garb of preventive detention; consequently, the adventurous course ventured upon by the

2. District Magistrate seems District Magistrate seems to be a colourable exercise known periphery of the known periphery of the intendment of the framer extraneous consideration, alien extraneous consideration alien to the law being illicitly, is accordingly hereby quashed is accordingly hereby quashed and declared to be a nullity.

3. Further for the manifestation of utter lack of sense of responsibility by the District Magistrate in not even caring to call upon the Superintendent of Police to reveal the bogy supportive material tending to substantiate his subjective opinion despite the patently self‑demonstrative vague generalization without spelling out particulars thereof and just hastily thumb‑marking the stamped portion of the papers tendered before him in the nature of requisition slip as a matter of automatism, while dealing with the rights of citizens amounts to dereliation of duty in breach of Article 5(2) of the 1973 Constitution; consequenty, the petition is allowed with special costs of Rs.3,000 against Asif Bajwa, present incumbent of the office of District Magistrate, Narowal personally.

4. Bofore parting it may be observed that the respondent, District Magistrate, who still seems to be in the infancy of service career and not immune from learning should acquaint himself if not educate as to the elementaries of the preventive detention laws vis‑a‑vis the Constitutional guarantees of the State citizens.

5. N.H.Q./M‑52/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed