TARIQ AHMAD BATLOO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARIQ Ahmad Batloo, for whom this Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by his father Jalaluddin Batloo, has been taken in preventive custody on 13 -7 -2000 under the Detention order DMS / PSA /117 dated 19 -11 -1999 of District Magistrate, Srinagar. Initially a writ petition was filed when the said Tariq Ahmad Batloo, was free and not detained under the aforementioned impugned order, but during the pendency of writ petition he was detained and thereafter he filed an amended petition on identical grounds with the only difference that by the time the amended writ petition was allowed and taken on record the petitioner stood detained under the impugned order passed under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 after the District Magistrate, Srinagar came to the conclusion that the detention of the said Tariq Ahmad Batloo was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner pre -judicial to the security of the State.

(2.) IN main, the following two grounds are urged to challenge the impugned order both in writ averments as also in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First, that the petitioner when taken in preventive custody under the impugned order, was not supplied the material, documents/statements, referred in the order as also the grounds of detention, thereby adversely affecting his right of making the representation against the detention to the Government. Second, that there has been delay in implementation of the detention order. There is fore -bearance of the State and its authorities / officers agencies to implement the order despite the petitioner being regularly available at home as also in court while being tried in FIR 96/99 of Police Station Maharaj Gunj under section 7/25 I.A. Act. The petitioner as also the prosecution and the concerned police regularly appeared in the case before the court on more than one occasion during the pendency of the case before the court, yet the authorities despite opportunities and the occasions to arrest him did not opt to arrest him, even after the petitioner got initial bail in the case. In the tell tale facts of the case, the very purpose of the detention is frustrated in so far as the proximate link between the detention order and the purpose of detention is not made out on record. The action of the respondents in moving leasurely to implement the detention order after over a period of nine months speaks for itself to vitiate the order.

(3.) FROM the record made available by the learned Government Advocate and the counter placed on record, it is revealed that record/report/dossier was withheld from detenue. Only simple, grounds of detention and the order of detention was served on the detenue. For inordinate delay in executing the detention order, reason recorded is that the detenue was not available. The delay caused is due to non availability of the detenue and the order is not vitiated on these counts. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is alleged : ...... At the time of his arrest that is, on 14 -7 -2000 till date, the order of detention, the ground of detention and the documents including dossier on which the detaining authority has based his satisfaction for passing the order of detention have not been provided to the detenue, nor he has been informed that he can make a representation.