ALI MOHD PARRAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /detenue has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for quashing detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/72/05 dated 21.01.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar in terms of the provisions -of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (for short the Act ) whereby and where under detenue came to be detained in detention.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner/detenue as projected in the grounds of detention and other material read with counter are that detenue is timber smuggler and is involved in smuggling of such activities. Detaining Authority after deriving satisfaction came to the conclusion that detenue is to be detained in detention and, accordingly, passed the order. Sufficiency of material and subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned before this court and cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition. It is domain of Detaining Authority to derive satisfaction. Apex Court in judgment Ibrahlm Nazeer Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3565 also observed that subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned before the court and could not be made subject matter of the writ petition. This view is also fortified by the judgment in case Sunila Jain Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1062 and also in case A. Geetha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4382.

(3.) PETITIONER /detenue has annexed documents contained annexure A to J with the writ petition. It appears that annexure J is a report made by the Additional DIG CID, CIK on 6.6.2006 to Special Secretary to J&K. Said report also indicates that detenue and another person namely Abdul Rashid Ganaie were evading arrest. It is profitable to reproduce last para of the said report hereunder: In connection with the seizer of timer, case FIR no. 8/2006 u/s 379 RPC, 6 Forest Act was registered in PS Kangan and case challenged against nine persons including All Prengi and Ghulam Nabi Parray. While seven persons were bailed out by the court, All Prengi and antochr person Abdul Rash id Ganaie evaded. All Prengi is also involved in two other cases (FIR no. 58/ 2001 and 23/2003 PS Kangan) challan of which has been produced in the Court of Law. Ghulam Nabi Parray is a contractor by profession and there is no criminal record against him in Police records.