GAZANFAR AHMAD HAJAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE to order No.DMS/PSA/06/2010 dated 19.05.2011, of District Magistrate, Srinagar respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Gazanfar Ahmad Hajam son of Haji Gh Qadir Hajam resident of Hajam Mohalla Nowgam Srinagar (herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention, must succeed for following reason(s):

(2.) IN the instant case the detenue along with other associates is alleged to have instigated the youth to resort to stone pelting, injuring police personnel and damaging public and government property. The detenue is not informed with sufficient clarity the exact allegations levelled and furnished the particulars of associates, who are stated to be responsible for indulging in stone pelting, damaging public property nor the particulars of public property alleged to have been damaged by detenue and his associates. The detention record does not reveal that the detenue is furnished the necessary details of occurrence(s) attributed to him and his unnamed and unidentified accomplices. The detenue is also alleged to be behind every stone pelting incident and instigating others to resort to similar activities. The grounds of detention ex facie are vague, ambiguous and sketchy and not clear to enable a man of common prudence to explain his stand muchless make an effective and meaningful representation. The detenue has been kept guessing about the facts and events that weighed with detaining authority and prompted him to record subjective satisfaction regarding sufficiency of the material to warrant preventive detention of the detenue. These are only few instances to illustrate that the grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and bound to keep the detenue guessing about what really was intended to be conveyed by the detaining authority. It is well settled law that even where one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr.Ram Krishan Versus The State of Delhi and others, AIR, 1953,; Chaju Ram Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, AIR 1971 SC 263; Mohd Yousuf Rather Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Syed Aasiya INdrabi Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR and others, 2009 (I) SLJ 2009 219.