ASIF ALI DAR Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition veracity and legality of the detention order bearing No.61/DMP/PSA/ 22 dtd. 25/6/2022, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama (the detaining authority) is assailed. In terms of the said detention order, Asif Ali Dar son of Ali Mohammad Dar resident of Niloora Tehsil Litter District Pulwama, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The impugned order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind and the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue. It is alleged that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that there was no fresh activity attributed to the petitioner and that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

(3.) On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein it is submitted that detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State as mentioned in the FIRs registered against him. The detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. The respondents have also produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.