KHALID NAZIR WAGAY Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of order No.07/DMK/PSA/2022 dtd. 29/3/2022, issued by District Kulgam, (for brevity "Detaining Authority"). In terms of the aforesaid order, Khalid Nair Wagay(for short "the detenu") has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case as whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue and that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention 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 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 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 HardhanSaha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198, The Secretary to Govt. Public Law and Order-F) and anr. vs. Nabia and another, (2015) 12 SCC 127,Gautam Jain vs. Union of India, 2017 (1) Jammu Kashmir Law Times Vol. 1 (SC) 1, DebuMahato vs. State of WB, AIR 1974 SC 816 and Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1982 SC 1143. In order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record.