SAMEER AHMAD WANI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant through his father questioned Detention Order No.DMU-JC/11/PSA/1 dated 13th May 2011 of District Magistrate, Udhampur (hereinafter "Detaining Authority"), whereby he was directed to be placed under preventive detention, in petition registered as HCP No.253/2011. The petitioner's case was that respondents in the petition while making Detention Order and executing it, had violated Constitutional and Statutory safeguards available to the detenue. It was further pleaded that the Detaining Authority lacked power to slap Detention Order on the same grounds on which earlier detention orders questioned in HCP No.58/2010 and HCP No.306/2010 were quashed by the High Court vide order dated 05.06.2010 and 08.04.2011. The petitioner insisted that the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing Detention Order was not supplied to the petitioner and that the grounds of detention being vague and sketchy, the petitioner was prevented from exercising his Constitutional and Statutory rights in effective and meaningful manner.

(2.) The respondents did not file their counter affidavit in opposition to the petition. The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.12.2011 dismissed the petition observing that all the safeguards as provided under the Constitution and J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, had been observed by respondents.

(3.) The order of Learned Single Judge, dismissing the petition is questioned in Letters Patent Appeal on hand, on the grounds that once the respondents opted not to controvert the averments made in the petition, the right course for the Learned Single Judge was to accept the stand taken by the petitioner and allow the petition. Learned Single Judge is said to have assumed supply of material relied upon by the Detaining Authority to the detenue, for the reason that such material was available on the detention record. It is pleaded that as the petitioner had no access to the detention record such assumption was misplaced. It is reiterated that the grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and sketchy and the petitioner has been pre vented from making representation against his detention.