SHAMEEMA AKHTER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 24.04.2006 may be noticed: "Mr. PS Ahmad Adv. for the petitioner. Admit. Issue three weeks notice to other side for filing counter affidavit. List thereafter. At this Mr. Ahmad, learned counsel submits that this petition be listed before a Bench who has passed order in OWP No.408/2005 on 17. 12.2005. Prayer allowed."

(2.) IT appears from perusal of the order aforementioned that the petitioner has pressed into service an ad interim direction passed in OWP 488/2005 to seek a similar interim direction and the direction having been passed by this bench, therefore, it has been directed to be listed before this Bench alone, understandably to maintain uniformity in the directions. When the petition came up before the Court on the last occasion it was deemed appropriate to examine the writ record of the petition in which interim direction is passed. Record being available interim direction passed therein may be noticed: "Allegation of damage having been caused to the forests appears to be the cause for the respondents to resort to the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act on which count the petitioner has already suffered a detention which stands quashed by the Court. Similar grounds are pressed into service herein. Respondent State was put on notice. They have failed to respond despite lapse of months together. Objections have not been filed in the CMP also. Heard. Admit. Notice afresh. Mr. Rathore, AAG accepts notice. Objections within four weeks. Be listed after the ensuing vacation. Till objections are filed and considered, execution of the impugned order of detention shall defer."

(3.) IT is manifest from the order aforementioned that the cause of detention was due to damage to the forest wealth, whereas in the case on hand grounds of detention reveal that the detention emanates from threat to the security of the State. The learned counsel appears to be unfair to the Court for not having placed the order relied upon in its entirety before the Court which deals with a matter relating to the theft of timber and is not attracted in a case of threat to security of the State, thus ex facie dissimilarity of facts. I may hasten to add that although interim directions are not binding on the court yet with a view to do substantial justice between the parties, the petition was directed to be listed along with the record of the writ petition referred to for purposes of interim relief. Adverting to the facts of the case it emerges that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate is not unknown to the statute. He has the power to pass the order when material is available. Prima facie material being available, indulgence is uncalled for. Nonetheless nothing prevents the petitioner to question the order after its execution and seek an elaborate and detailed deliberation by the Court. No ground much less tenable one available. Dismissed along with CM P. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.