MOHAMMAD JAVED NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAMMAD Javed Naik has filed this petition through his father mohammad Yousaf Naik seeking quashing of District Magistrate Ramban's Order No. DMR/psa/07/09 dated 7-11-2007 besides a command to the respondents to set him to liberty and pay him compensation for his illegal detention. It is stated by him that he was a regular student of 10th class in Government High School, Dharm-Gool when while on his way to the school on 21-11-2007 he was summoned to Police Post sangaldan and then to Police Station, Gool where he was arrested by the Station House officer of the Police Station. He is stated to have been later shifted to Jammu where he was detained pursuant to the orders of District Magistrate, Ramban.

(2.) DENYING the allegations appearing in the grounds of detention relied upon by the district Magistrate in directing his detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, as incorrect, the petitioner has alleged that his detention was bad in law because the respondents had violated the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India read with section 13 (1) of the Jammu and Kashmir public Safety Act, 1978, in not supplying him the material i. e. the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban, the seizure memo in case FIR No. 30/2006, the statements of the witnesses along with other relevant material which had been relied upon by the District Magistrate in directing his detention.

(3.) JUSTIFYING petitioner's preventive detention. District Magistrate, Ramban has stated that the petitioner had been indulging in anti-national and terrorist activities which were prejudicial to the security of the state and as such the petitioner was required to be detained under Section 8 of the public Safety Act so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. He says that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner as all relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority had been supplied to him and he had been informed of his statutory right to make representation against his detention.