IMTIYAZ AHMAD CHIKLA Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to order No.DMS/PSA/13/2021 dtd. 22/2/2021, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Chikla (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been placed under preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all the statutory requirements and constitutional requirements have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. In support of their contentions raised in the counter affidavit, the respondents have also produced the detention record.