SYED ASIA ANDRABI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment dated 24.3.2011, rendered in HCP No. 244/2010, filed on behalf of detenue, order of detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/64/2010 dated 1.9.2010 was quashed. Subsequent thereto, detenue has again been detained vide order of detention impugned bearing No. DMS/PSA/01/2011 dated 7.4.2011, validity of the same is questioned.

(2.) It is contended that the copy of the dossier has been reproduced verbatim in the grounds of detention. Only word ''dossier'' is replaced by the word ''grounds of detention'', which according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would show that the detaining authority has not applied its mind. Formulation of grounds is imperative for deriving satisfaction so as to pass the preventive order. On this count, while contending the order of detention to be invalid, learned Counsel relied on the judgment captioned Fiaz Ahmed through his Mother Atiqa Begum v. State of J&K and Anr.,2010 11 SLJ 872, wherein, while noticing the same position and while relying on the judgment captioned Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of J&K, 1985 AIR(SC) 764 , it was held that there was no due application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

(3.) In the present grounds of detention, the grounds of detention of the earlier detention order No. 64 of 20101 dated 1.9.2010 along with few fresh facts have been taken into consideration. Same is contended to nullify the entire order. In this connection learned Counsel has rightly placed reliance on the judgment captioned Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna and Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 1234. Para 12 is relevant to be quoted: 12. It emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronouncements that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule, it nullifies the entire order.