NISSAR AHMAD KHAN Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent no. 2 herein, by order No. DMK/PSA/57/2021 dtd. 18/10/2021, has placed Nissar Ahmad Khan S/o Mohammad Aslam Khan R/o Khan Colony Chanpora, Srinagar (for short "detenue") under preventive detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state and directed his lodgment in Central Jail Srinagar. It is this order of which petitioner is aggrieved and beseeches quashment thereof.

(2.) The detenue through his mother has filed the instant petition stating therein that the detenue is a peace loving citizen; has never indulged in any subversive or unlawful activity which would cause prejudice to the security of the state or maintenance of public order; there is no recent FIR against the detenue. It is urged that in all the FIR's mentioned in the grounds of detention, detenue stands already acquitted by the competent court; the detention order is replica of the dossier, however, the Detaining Authority has failed to prepare the grounds of detention itself which is a pre-requisite for passing any detention order. The relevant material on which the detention order has been passed has also not been supplied to the detenue which has prevented the detenue to make an effective representation. It is further urged that the detenue was not informed that within how much time he can make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority or to the Government, no period was specified which violates the rights of the detenue as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and Sec. 13 of the Public Safety Act; the grounds of the detention were never readover and explained to the detenue in his local Kashmiri or Urdu language which he could have understood; the respondents have concealed that the detenue stands already acquitted in the FIR mentioned in the grounds of detention.

(3.) The detenue has raised several other grounds to challenge the detention order. The counsel for the detenue, however mainly laid emphasis on the ground that the detention order has been issued without application of mind on both the grounds, i.e., Security of the State as also the maintenance of public order.