AMIR FAROOQ DAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (detenue, for short) through his mother has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of appropriate writs in the nature of Certiorari, for quashment of detention order, No. DMS/PSA/ 03/2023 dtd. 2/1/2023, passed by Respondent No. 2 (the Detaining Authority, for short) and Mandamus, commanding the respondents to release his person and pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs for illegal detention.

(2.) The detenue has assailed the impugned order of detention on multiple grounds, however, learned counsel for the detenue has confined his argument primarily on the grounds that allegations attributed to him in the grounds of detention may be a law and order problem but do not qualify to fall within the definition of Public Order under Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA, for short), the grounds of detention are vague, as there is no specific allegation regarding his involvement in the unlawful activities attributed to him and that respondents have failed to consider his representation.

(3.) The respondents in their counter affidavit are affront with the contention that since activities of the detenue were found prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, his preventive detention was recommended by the concerned police station, a Dossier duly, supported by relevant material, was submitted to the District Magistrate, Srinagar who on careful examination of the same, has concluded that preventive detention of the detenue was necessary. Therefore, impugned detention order has been passed, with the sole object to deter the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. The warrant was executed by the Executing Officer and detenue was handed over to Superintendent Central Jail, KotBhalwal, Jammu, for his lodgement, where contents of detention order/warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the language understood by him and he subscribed his signatures on the execution order in support thereof. Detenue was provided copies of the detention order along with grounds of detention against proper receipt and he was also informed of his right to make a representation. Later, the impugned detention order came to be approved and confirmed by the Government vide order dtd. 6/1/2023. According to the respondents, the detention of the detenue in the present case is precise and proximate and since all statutory, constitutional provisions and legal formalities of PSA have been followed, there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention.