RAJA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has been filed by Mst. Raja Wife of Ab. Ahad Rather R/o Ajas Sonawari, District Baramulla who has been detained by respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Public Safety Act by means of the detention order No. 03/DMK/PSA of 2003 dated 16.8.2003. Petitioner has challenged the said detention on various grounds. It is alleged that the detenu was arrested on 14.8.2003 by the respondents and was subsequently detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act in terms of the said order which order was neither communicated to the detenu nor was served upon him. It is submitted in the present petition that the detenu has not been appraised of his right of making representation to the Government against his detention thus the detention order is bad in the eye of law and cannot stand. It is further alleged that the grounds of detention as submitted are illegal, ambiguous and cannot form basis for detaining the detenu. There is no 'live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the period of detention and that the same is bad on the ground that the procedural safeguards prescribed under the J&K Public Safety Act read with Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed/complied with.

(2.) THE State has in its counter filed by respondent No. 3 stated that the detention of the detenu has been ordered on the basis of the grounds of detention which give detailed history of the activities of the detenu. It is further alleged that in addition to the involvement of the detenu in FIR of which reference is made in the grounds of detention and keeping in view his past conduct and antecedents history and the activities which are highly prejudicial to the security of the State, it was found imperative to detain the detenu under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

(3.) HEARD . Considered. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the detenu has been detained by means of the impugned order which reads as under: -