FAYAZ AHMED BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to detention order No. 4/DMP/2001 dated 6-4-2001 passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama Shri Fayaz Ahmed Bhat s/o Abdul Geri Bhat r/o Chatrigam was ordered to be detained under S. 8 of the Public Safety Act. The detention order was executed and the detenu taken into preventive custody on 12-4-2001. The detention period was fixed at 24 months for preventing the detenu from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention and order of detention is being assailed in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken many grounds of challenge which are being taken for consideration one by one.

(2.) Firstly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that District Magistrate has not applied his mind before taking the decision for passing the detention order under S. 8 of the Act. According to learned counsel the detaining authority was under a legal obligation to take into consideration all the relevant materials and grounds on which the freedom of the detenu was considered to be prejudicial to the security of State. He submits that from the bare perusal of the detention order it is revealed that no material was perused by the District Magistrate and as such detention and detention order of the detenu is vitiated. Learned counsel read out the order of detention passed by the detaining authority and laid emphasis of the words "on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me," to urge that the detaining authority had perused only the grounds and not the material for drawing his satisfaction.

(3.) The contention raised though attractive is not impressive. The adequacy of the material on which a detaining authority draws satisfaction is not open to judicial review. Section 8 of the Act does not lay down any parameters as to how the satisfaction is to be drawn. It is for the authority to rely upon any kind of material to draw his satisfaction that activities of a person sought to be detained are prejudicial for the security of State. It is his subjective satisfaction. The sufficiency of the material on which such satisfaction has been drawn is not open to the judicial review.