GANPAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was detained Under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978 by Order No. 15/80 DMR dated 271-1981. The grounds of detention were communicated to the pelilioner and read as under :

(2.) THE petitioner has questioned his detention and has alleged that he had earlier been detained vide order dated 17-12-1980 passed by the District Magistrate but that detention order was revoked by the Government and thereafter he was detained under the impugned Order. That the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner earlier and the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on his detention vide Order 27-1-1981, except for some minor changes, were exactly the same and that since his earlier detention had been revoked by the Government, he could not be detained on the same grounds again. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that the grounds of detention were neither translated, nor explained to him by the detaining authority, in the language which he understands and as such his detention stood vitiated. Another grievance made by the petitioner is that in any event the grounds of detention lacked particulars, were vague and various incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were not relevant to his detention Under Section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978.

(3.) IN reply Mr. S. D. Sharma. the learned Addl. Advocate General has argued that since the earlier detention of the petitioner suffered from a technical defect inasmuch as the order of detention had not been sent to the Government within the specified lime, the same had to be revoked and that the said revocation of the earlier order of detention cannot in any way render his subsequent detention illegal. Relying upon the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Jail, in reply to the petition, Mr. Sharma has urged that the grounds of detention were properly translated and explained to the detenu in the language understood by him. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that reference to various incidents in the grounds of detention, was in the nature of an introductory part and the grounds of detention were neither vague nor indefinite. Urged the learned Counsel, that the activities of the petitioner being of a very serious nature. no further particulars could be given to him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding the non-communication of evidence, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma that there was no such evidence which was required to be supplied to the detenu and that in. any event, the petitioner had not pointed out any such evidence of which he required to make an effective representation.