MUZAMIL YAQOOB BHAT Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order No.DMS/PSA/43/2021 dtd. 9/9/2021, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Shri Muzamil Yaqoob Bhat @ Muzz Don S/o Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat R/o Khonmoh, Kati Mohalla, Pantha Chowk Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been placed under preventive custody and lodged in District Jail, Kupwara.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order without application of mind. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the material forming the basis of the impugned order of detention has not been provided to the detenue. The petitioner has further contended that the detaining authority has not spelt out the compelling reasons while passing the impugned order.

(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 maintenance of public order. 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 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, Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) and another vs. Nabila and another, (2015) 12 SCC 127 and Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1982 SC 1143. In support of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the detention record.