BASHIR AHMAD DAR Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is to the order No.03-DMG-PSA- 2020 dtd. 28/12/2020, issued by District Magistrate, Ganderbal-respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Bashir Ahmad Dar @ Abu Zaid @ Bashir Waskuri son of Ghulam Nabi Dar resident of Waskura Dar Mohalla Ganderbal (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been ordered to be taken into 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 Constitutional and Statutory 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. That 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. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198, Borjahan Gorey vs. State of WB, (1972) 2 SCC 550, Abdul Aziz vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1973) 1 SCC 301, Dev Mahato vs. State of WB, AIR 1974 SC 816 and Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1982 SC 1143.