UMAIQ MUSHTAQ ZARGAR Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Anantnag, vide order No. 45/DMA/PSA/DET/2022 dtd. 29/6/2022, detained Umaiq Mushtaq Zargar, S/o Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar, R/o Krewa Colony, Tehsil Bijbehara, District Anantnag, under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order of detention is challenged by the detenu through his father, Mushtaq Ahmad Zargar.

(2.) By virtue of the impugned order of detention, the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, has taken the detenu in preventive detention to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order of detention has been assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; (a) the allegations made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu; (b) the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier, thus, there is no application of mind; (c) the relevant material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been furnished to the detenu and there were no compelling circumstances to issue the impugned order of detention, as such, the same is bad; (d) the detenu was not informed of his right to make a representation and the representation made by the detenu has not been considered till date.

(3.) Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, learned G.A. has filed the counter-affidavit as well as produced the detention record. It is submitted by him that the detenu was detained under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, validly by virtue of detention order No. 45/DMA/PSA/DET/2022 dtd. 29/6/2022 issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, in accordance with the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention after deriving its satisfaction and considering all the relevant material. The Detaining Authority complied with all the statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards provided under the Act. The Advisory Board after considering the case and material placed before it has held that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, thus, after the opinion, the Government confirmed the order of detention.