JAVID AHMAD KUNDOO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to order No.DMS/PSA/78/2010 dated 25th September 2010, of District Magistrate, Srinagar respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Javid Ahmad Kundooson of HabibullahKundooresident of ManzMohalla, Anchar, Soura, District Srinagar(herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention and his lodgement directed in Kote-BhalwalJail, Jammu.

(2.) THE preventive detention of the detenue is questioned on thegrounds that the respondents while detaining the detenue have violated his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5), Constitution of India and Section 13, JandK Public Safety Act 1978.

(3.) IN the instant case the detenue alongwithhis associates is alleged to be responsible for indulging in stone pelting and forcing shopkeepers to close their business establishment and also attack police and security forces. 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, nor the particulars of security personnel, who are alleged to have been attacked by the detenue and his associates by pelting stones on them. The counter affidavit does not reveal that the detenue is furnished the details of occurrence(s) attributed to detenue and his unnamed and unidentified associates. The detenue, only after getting the said information, would have been in a position to explain his stand and make an effort to convince the competent authority that his preventive detention was unwarranted. These are only few instances to illustrate that the grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous andbound to keep the detenue guessing about what really was intended tobe conveyed by the detaining authority. It is well settled law that evenwhere one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory rights of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are to be taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr.RamKrishan versus The State of Delhi and others, AIR, 1953; Chaju Ram Versus State of J&K, AIR 1971 SC 263; Mohd Yousuf Rather versus State of JandK, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Syed Aasiya INdrabi versus State of JandK and others, 2009 (I) SLJ 2009 219.