JAMAL KHOJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. These seven writ petitions Nos. 447/83 448/83,449/83,450/83,451/83,452/83 and 453/83 are filed under Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the detention of the petitioners respectively detailed as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners strenuously submit that the impugned order of detention is in clear violation of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) and the detention of the petitioners is voilative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He further submits that not even the material on the basis of which the District Magistrate formed subjective satisfaction are supplied to him, but the grounds referred to above are also vague and not the grounds to support the order of detention under any of the provisions of the Act. All the grounds stated relates to the commission of offences which are ordinarily triable by the criminal court and the extra -ordinary power excercised under the Act is without any foundation.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General appearing for the state fairly concedes and in my opinion rightly, that the grounds on the basis of which the detention order is passed are generally triable in a ordinary criminal court regarding which FIRs are already registered and other grounds relating to putting the judicial Magistrate Court Building on fire in March, 1983 and a similar incident also vague to the extent that it does, not mention the exact date. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the failure of the District Magistrate to mention the dates in the grounds has deprived the petitioner to make the effective representation. On hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that the order of detention passed by District Magistrate, Kupwara against the petitioner on August 26, 1983 suffers from the infirmities, which are mentioned above. The liberty of a man is a valuable right, which cannot be permitted to be taken away in a ordinary manner as done by the District Magistrate in the present case. In so far as the; non -supply of material is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Honâ„¢ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 1500 (Ibrahim Ahmad Batti Vs. State of Gujrat and others), the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para No. 10 of the judgment is as follows: - Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly emerge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases : a) all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenue. 