MUKHTAR AHMAD GANAI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUKHTAR Ahmad Ganai, was detained for a period of 12 months in Central Jail, Srinagar under order DMS/PSA/80 dated 04 -08 -1998 of District Magistrate, Srinagar under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1 978, allegedly with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. He was taken in preventive custody on 20 -7 -2000, under the aforementioned detention order. The order as also the detention is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition on grounds both factual and legal as put forth in the petition. The grounds include non -supply of the material referred in the grounds and detention order; alleged failure to supply translated version of the grounds in urdu or Kashmiri language which detenue understood and thereby adversely effecting the petitioner is make representation against the detention to the Government. Besides, the detention is also challenged on allegations of contravention of the provisions of Public Safety Act and failure to adhere to the time schedule provided under the Act.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of other two respondents on the basis of his access to the record and claim of being conversant with the facts of the case notwithstanding, the order of detention having been passed by his successor, the then District Magistrate, Srinagar. The passing of the impugned order of detention is not denied and taking detenue in preventive custody on 20 -7 -2000 is not also denied. The contents of the warrant of detention are averred to have been read -over and explained to detenue in Urdu/ Kashmiri language which detenue did understand, who in lieu thereof has put his signature on the executed copy of detention order. The detenues case has been examined by the Advisory Board constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The Board has confirmed the Government action in ordering detention of the detenue under the impugned order. The detention order is alleged to be based on the activities of the detenue which are prejudicial to the security of the State. The grounds have been supplied to him without any material or record. FIR implicating the accused is stated to be not relied upon.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner solicits and urges following two grounds in support of his contention that the impugned detention in this case, cannot be sustained. First, the learned counsel submits that the material considered by the detaining authority, the then District Magistrate, Srinagar basis of detention, as referred in grounds, has not been at all supplied to the detenue and thereby the order as well as the grounds have not been at all communicated to the detenue, thereby prejudicially affecting his right to make representation. Second, the learned counsel solicits that despite the detenue being taken in preventive detention way back on 22 -6 -1998 in FIR 179/98 under section 7/271. A. Act, registered at Police Station Parimpora, and the fact that he continued in such detention the order of detention was not at all implemented for over two years till 20 -7 -2000 and more so, when there is nothing to show that the detaining authority had any compelling reasons to pass the detention order in question.