AIJAZ AHMAD SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, Aijaz Ahinad Shah through his father Nazir Ahmad Shah has called in question his detention order No. DMS/PSA/63 dated: 24 -01 -2002 passed by respondent No. 2. In this petition, it is inter -alia maintained that the detenue came to be arrested on 12 -11 -2001 by the security forces and since then, the detenue continues to be in detention; that the petitioner obtained the grounds of detention unofficially from the office of respondent No.

(2.) ; that the detention is bad on the ground that procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act. Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution have not been followed/complied with; that the respondents have detained the detenue on 24 -01 -2002 under the said detention order when he was already in their custody; that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, devoid of any particulars and are based on conjectures and also bereft of required satisfaction by the detaining" authority: that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenue are in English language, when the detenue docs not understand the said language: that the translation copy of the grounds of detention was never supplied to the detenue; that one of the grounds of detention are that the detenue was arrested in FIR No. 209/2001 under Section 7/25 Indian Arms Act of Police Station Safakadal, but the copy of that FIR has not been furnished to the detenue. On this ground as well the detention order is illegal and unconstitutional. 2. On admission of this petition, respondent No. 2 caused his appearance through the Government Advocate and filed his counter affidavit, wherein it is submitted that the detenue came to be arrested initially incase FIR No. 209 of 2001 of Police Station Safakadal. Srinagar and has stated that there was apprehension of his getting released on bail, therefore, keeping in view The activities of the detenue spelt out in the grounds of detention it was found necessary to detain him by invoking the provisions of the Public Safety Act; that the detention order came to be issued on 24 -01 -2002 and this order came to be executed on the detenue on 31 -01 -2002. The said order came to be confirmed by the Government on 03 -2 -2002. The other paras of the petition stand controverted by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Hussain, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Gadda, learned GA vice Mr. Gh. Mustaffa.