MANZOOR AHMAD WANI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through the medium of instant petition, has sought quashment of the order No.DMS/PSA/130/2021 dtd. 28/2/2021, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar (for brevity "Detaining Authority") whereby. In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Manzoor Ahmad Wani @ Man Gassi son of Ghulam Mohammad Wani resident of Gasoo Zakura, Srinagar (for short "the detenue") has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind. It has been further contended that the Statutory safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been further urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the material which formed basis of the order of detention has not been provided to the detenue. It has also been contended that the petitioner has not been informed as to before which authority he had to make a representation.

(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 requirements 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 Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198, Borjahan Gorey vs. State of WB, (1972) 2 SCC 550,Abdul Aziz vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1973) 1 SCC 301, Debu Mahato 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.