HAMID FAROOQ BHAT Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu has assailed the detention order No. 10/DMK/PSA/2021 dtd. 18/10/2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam,vide which, the detenu namely Hamid Farooq Bhat has been detained under Sec. 8(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. The detenu has assailed this order of detention through his bother namely Amir Ahmad Bhat.

(2.) The order of detention has been assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; (i) the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify the illegal action of detaining the detenu; (ii) the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegation; (iii) the detention order has been passed without any application of mind, thus, the same is liable to be set aside; (iv) the Detaining Authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself which is a pre-requisite for it; (v) all the relevant material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention has not been furnished to the detenue; (vi) the detenu was not informed of his right to make representation against the detention order to the Government or to the Detaining Authority, as such, the detention order is required to be set aside.

(3.) Ms. Asifa Padroo, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed the counter affidavit as well as produced the detention record. It is submitted by her that the detenu was detained pursuant to the detention order under the provisions of Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 on the basis of the record submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kulgam. The Detaining Authority after carefully examining the case and also after deriving its subjective satisfaction in this matter found it imperative and necessary to detain the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is also stated that the detention order was executed by Executing Officer and all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority were provided to him. The contents of the same were read over and explained to the detenu in the language which he fully understood. He was also informed of his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority or to the Government, if he so desires but the detenu has not exercised his right to make any representation. It is also stated that the Advisory Board has examined the case of the detenue and found sufficient grounds for upholding the order of detention.