ADIL AHMAD PAUL Vs. U T OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.DMS/PSA/89/ 2022 dtd. 30/8/2022, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar (for brevity 'detaining authority'). In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Adil Ahmad Paul @ Jamal (for short 'detenue') has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and 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, nonexistent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the safeguards provided under law 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 the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.

(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 detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and 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 contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.