MOHAMMAD SYED MALIK Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this LPA, the appellant has assailed the order dated 21st of June, 2017 of the writ Court, passed in HCP No. 09/2017 on the premise that the writ Court has not adverted to the grounds taken by the appellant in the writ petition. It has dismissed the writ petition, primarily, on the ground that if the detention order is issued on more than one ground which are independent of each other, the detention order will survive, even if one of the grounds is found to be unfounded or legally unsustainable. The respondents had neither pleaded so in their objections filed in the writ petition nor had they projected it before the Court. It is further pleaded in the appeal that it is a settled position of law, that in the Habeas Corpus petition, the procedural safeguards are the only safeguards available to the detenue which he can highlight in his petition while challenging the order of detention. The appellant has proceeded to state that the respondent No. 2 did not inform the detune that he has a right to make a representation against the order of detention before him also which cuts at the very root of the case.

(2.) It has further been pleaded in the appeal, that the writ Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has observed that the perusal of the record would reveal that the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language that he understood. However, the fact remains that neither the grounds of detention were explained to the detenue nor was any material provided to him, so that he could make an effective representation against the order of detention, rendering the order of detention liable to be set aside. The learned writ Court has not considered these grounds and has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment in an illegal and improper manner.

(3.) It is also pleaded that the learned writ Court has not examined as to whether a person can be detained under the PSA if he is already involved in substantive offences. In the end it has been urged that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 21st of June, 2017 passed by the learned writ Court be set aside.