ASSADULLAH PARRAY Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of Order No. 07/DMB/PSA of 2021 dtd. 22/9/2021 passed by District Magistrate, Bandipora -respondent No.2 (hereinafter called "impugned order") the detenue namely Assadullah Parray S/O Haji Abdul Gani Parray R/O Syed Mohalla Hajan Bandipora, has been ordered to be detained under preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in terms of Clause (a) of Sec. -8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his daughter, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the grounds taken in the petition in hand.

(2.) Case set up by the petitioner is that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification. It is also pleaded that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful representation against these allegations. Further plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority. It has been further pleaded that the impugned order is to remain valid for a period of 12 days as provided by Sec. 8(4) of the Act, 1978 unless the same is approved by the Government within the said period. It is during the period of those 12 days that a representation can be made by a detenue before the District Magistrate. However, the detenue has not been informed that he can make a representation before the District Magistrate within a period of 12 days from the date of passing of the impugned order, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated. Further contention is that neither translated copies of FIRs nor translated copies of statements of witnesses recorded in the FIRs registered against the detenue, seizure memo etc., have been provided to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the appropriate authority. Detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds, therefore, prayed for quashment of the impugned order on the said grounds.

(3.) Reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 vehemently resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order etc. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and, it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.