JAMIL SHAHEEN Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the Habeas Corpus Petitions above referred, the petitioner Jamil Shaheen, who is common to all the three writ petitions has challenged simultaneously by (1) Habeas Corpus Petition No. 156 of 1985, the detention of Bashir Ahmad Bhat S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat R/o Mohalla Shaksaz, Anantnag detained vide Order No. 1591/ST dt. 24-2-1985 by District Magistrate, Anantnag under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 as stood amended (hereinafter called the Act,) (2) in Habeas Corpus Petition No.. 157 of 1985 the detention of Shoukat Ahmad Baba alias Shoga Baba, R/o Dangerpora, Anantnag detained vide Order No. 1605/ST dt. 24-2-1985 passed under the provisions of the Act by District Magistrate, Anantnag, and (3) in Habeas Corpus petition No. 158 of 1985 challenged the detention of Shabir Ahmad Shah S/o Mohd Abdullah Shah R/o Reshi Bazar, Anantnag detained vide Order No. 1619/ST dt. 24-2-1985 under the Act by District. Magistrate, Anantnag.

(2.) Points of attack and the facts alleged in the above said three petitions being identical, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a Single Judgment. It has been alleged that the detenus, whose names are quoted above were arrested by Police Station, Anantnag under the orders passed under the Act on Feb. 24. 1985. It is further pointed out that the detenus were already in police custody since 7-2-1985, whereas the order of detention impugned in the present petitions was passed on Feb. 24, 1985 and they were served on Feb. 26, 1985 with the communication from Respondent No.2 the District Magistrate, Anantnag along with the grounds and were informed that they have been detained vide the orders quoted above respectively. In the petitions Amendment of S. 10-A issued vide Ordinance No. 11 of the 1984, which later on became the Amendment Act of 1985 was also challenged, but the same was not pressed before the Division Bench and hence the petitions were directed to be laid for hearing before the Single Bench of this court. Despite opportunities given to the respondents right from 8-5-1985, the respondents have not filed the counter affidavits nor any record was produced at the time of hearing.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very out set submitted that the orders impugned does not show the application of mind by the District Magistrate mainly on two grounds, firstly that the detenus were in detention at the time when the order was passed under the Act on April 24, 1985, secondly, earlier to the impugned orders all the detenus were also detained earlier vide order issued under the Act on May 22, 1984. The district Magistrate has not mentioned his awareness either in the order impugned or in the grounds of detention served on the detenus that the detenus were already under detention at the time when the orders were passed or that the earlier orders which stood revoked were within his knowledge, thus relying on the authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 581 Avtar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be quashed. On the merits also, learned counsel submits that the grounds on which the detenus are detained are vague and some are even stale, some of which are also the repetition of the earlier order, which stood revoked, it is also submitted that the material on the basis of which the learned District Magistrate based his subjective satisfaction was not supplied to the detenus.