LAWS(J&K)-2002-12-33

TARIQ MAJEED CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On December 28, 2002
Tariq Majeed Chowdary Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject Tariq Majeed Chowdary was arrested on 21.11.2001 under Section 3/4 POTO registered at Police Station Shaheed Gunj Srinagar. During this punitive detention, district Magistrate Srinagar, Respondent No.2 detained him under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act under Order No. DMS/PSA/42 dated 04 -01.2002. this order is under challenge in this petition on number of pleaded grounds, allegedly covering violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act of 1978. Further Mr. M.A. Qayoom, confined challenge to the detention order on following grounds: -

(2.) FIRST , that the detenue was not given order with grounds of detention and was not even supplied material documents, the basis of the detention. Second, no compelling reasons are made out to sustain the preventive detention at a time when the subject was already being held under punitive detention in a regular case. Moreso, when the subject has not moved any application for bail in the regular case, FIR 147/2001 of Police Station Shaheed Gunj and third that despite petitionerâ„¢s father having made representation to Government against detention pursuant to the letter dated 04 -01 -2002 addressed to him, the Government neither considered it nor any decision was taken thereto. Non consideration of the representation has obviously vitiated the detention.

(3.) IN reply, Mr. R.Q. Gadda, submits that the detenue has been communicated order and the detention grounds. It has been explained to him in the language which he understood. Receipt had been obtained from the detenue is token of his having received the order and the grounds. No material was supplied to detenue as the grounds of detention alone is the material on which is based the detention order. The petitioner detenue is admitted not to have moved the court for bail in regular FIR, yet detenueâ„¢s activities have compelled the State to pass the detention order.