FELIX MATOO Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged Order No.PSA 01 of 2024 dtd. 15/1/2024 issued by District Magistrate Jammu (for brevity 'Detaining Authority') whereby petitioner - Felix Matoo S/o Vishal Matoo R/o H. No. 262 Christian Colony Jammu (hereinafter referred to as 'detenue') has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind, inasmuch as, in most of the FIRs mention whereof is made in the grounds of detention, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail but this fact is not recorded in the grounds of detention. It has also been contended that there has been lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority inasmuch as the detaining authority was not sure as to whether alleged acts of the petitioner fall under the category of acts 'prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' or under the category of acts 'prejudicial to the security of the State'. The impugned order of detention has further been challenged on the ground that whole of the material forming grounds of detention has not been furnished to him, as a result of which, he has been unable to make an effective representation against the order of detention. It has been also contended that the petitioner was not given the translated version of the material as a result of which he was unable to understand the technical language of the grounds of detention; consequently he could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, according to the petitioner, his vital statutory and constitutional rights have been violated.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing a counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that all the safeguards have been adhered to and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. It has been contended that the petitioner was found to be a dreaded/notorious criminal and substantive law could not deter him from committing the crime, as a result of which, the detaining authority was compelled to pass the impugned order of detention. It has been further submitted that whole of the material forming basis of grounds of detention has been supplied to the petitioner and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the languages he understands. According to the respondents, the grounds urged by petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without merit. In order to support their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.