RIYAZ AHMAD BEIGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RIYAZ Ahmad Beigh has been detained by District Magistrate Srinagar - respondent No. 2 under order No. DMS/PSA/ 69 dated 02 -07 -1998 for a period of 12 months in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act 1978. This order is challenged on grounds detailed out in the petition. Respondents through respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Srinagar have filed counter.

(2.) HEARD . Counsel for the petitioner assails the detention order on submissions that the order of detention was not served on him. The detenue was not supplied copy of FIR and other material relied on in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention served on him were not explained to him in Urdu or Kashmiri language which he understands, nor the grounds were accompanied by a script or translation in these languages. The grounds as such were quite unintelligible to the detenue. Though the order of detention is passed on 02 -07 -98, yet it took the respondents around one year to take the detenue in preventive custody on 26 -06 -99, when during all this period petitioner was with the respondents in punitive custody after his arrest on 05 -05 -98 in FIR No. 85/98 u/s 7/27 Indian Arms Act registered at P/S M.R. Gunj Srinagar. The delay in execution of the order fairly shows non -application of mind of the detaining authority and the routine under -gone by the detaining authority only to extend incarceration by hook or crook of the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Khan, GA in reply submits that the detenue after his apprehension in the said regular case and after recovery of arms and ammunition, was detained under the impugned order of detention in order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The detenue was informed of his right to make a representation. The detention order was read over and explained to detenue in language which he understood after he was taken in preventive custody on 26 -06 -99. The grounds of detention were also served to the detenue and its contents were read over and explained to him. The detaining authority has applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before him and has drawn subjective satisfaction culminating in passing of impugned detention order.