ABDUL HAMEED GANIE Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of Detention Order No. 149/DMS/PSA/2022 dtd. 16/9/2022 (for short 'impugned order') passed by District Magistrate, Shopian -respondent No.2 the petitioner namely Ab. Hameed Ganie @ Dr. Hameed Fayaz (for short 'detenue'), was ordered to be detained under preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in terms of Clause (a-i) of Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. -8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his wife, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the grounds taken in the petition on hand; that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification; 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; that he was not provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority; that mere use of words that 'the detenue can make a representation before the District Magistrate, if he so desires, fails to fulfill the basic procedure laid down in Article 22 of the Constitution and is in total violation of the rights of the detenue guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution; that the Detaining authority, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds, therefore, the same is not sustainable. It was prayed to quash the impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.

(3.) Counter 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.