TARIQ AHMAD SOFI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the decision of the learned Writ Court dated 01.02.2017 rendered in HCP No. 361/2016, Shahid Ahmad Bhat Vs. State of J & K and ors., holding that since the order extending the period of detention was neither on record nor the same was challenged, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner, and, consequently, disposing of the habeas corpus petition with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to assail the detention orders and the orders of extension. The learned Writ Court followed the above ratio in three other habeas corpus petitions, being HC Nos. 294/2016, 377/2016, 441/2016 on the very same day. The appellants are aggrieved thereby.

(2.) Given the nature of the controversy involved herein, we are not going into the details factual concerning the cases of the detainees; it would suffice to mention that the four detenues involved in the four LPAs have been detained by four different detention orders issued by the respective District Magistrates in exercise of their powers vested in them under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These detention orders have been challenged on behalf of the detainees by their respective immediate relatives on numerous grounds taken in the respective petitions.

(3.) During the pendency of the above habeas corpus petitions, the Government in the Home Department in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 18 (1)(a)(i) read with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 18 of the Act, passed identical orders vis-a-vis all the four detainees, directing that they be detained for a further period of three months.