FAHEEM SULTAN GOJREE Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/63/2021 dtd. 20/10/2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar,pursuant to which, the District Magistrate, had ordered the detention of detenu namely Faheem Sultan Gojree S/o Sh. Mohammad Sultan Gojree R/o Jahangir Mohalla Cement Kadal, Srinagar under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. The detenu has assailed this order of detention through his bother namely ShaizanSultan Gojree.

(2.) The Detaining Authority by virtue of the impugned order of detention in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, has taken the detenu in preventive custody to prevent him in acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The impugned detention order has been issued on the basis of material supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar vide his communication dtd. 19/10/2021. The grounds of detention reveal that the detenue has been reported to have developed contacts with various terrorist/secessionist organizations to carry out the activities of secessionism and has associated with terrorist organization TRF (the Resistance Force). The detenue was providing all logistic support including transportation of arms from one place to another. The targets include street vendors, labourers from outside the State working at orchards, small shops commercial establishment so that cycle of terror is to create lawlessness and in order to stop the detenue from indulging in the above activities and to take immediate preventive measures to protect the society from violence and social indiscipline and threat to the safety of the public.

(3.) The impugned order of detention has been assailed by the detenu inter alia on the grounds that; (i) the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu; (ii) the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent against which no representation can be made; (iii) the Detaining Authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself, therefore, there is total non-application of mind while passing the order of the detention; (iv) the respondent No. 2 has not furnished the relevant material relied upon by the Detaining Authority enabling him to make an effective representation; (v) the detenu was not informed of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority or to the Government; (vi) the detention order has not been read and explained to him in the language, he understand.