LAWS(J&K)-2008-5-5

GHULAM MOHD BHAT Vs. STATE

Decided On May 23, 2008
GHULAM MOHD BHAT Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GHULAM Mohammad Bhat s/o. Jalal-ud-Din Bhat r/o. Hyderpora, budgam (the detenu) has been detained by the District Magistrate, Udhampur under section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act) vide order No. PSA-2007/17 dated 19-12-2007. His son namely Irfan Ahmed Bhat (the petitioner) has, through the medium of the present petition challenged the order of detention on various grounds inter alia that a copy of the order of detention has not been furnished to the detenu, that there were no compelling reasons for directing preventive detention of the detenu with the detaining authority, that the grounds on the basis of which the detenu has been detained under the provisions of the Act are not only ambiguous, uncertain and untenable but are also untrue and that the proper procedure has not been followed by the detaining authority while directing preventive detention of the detenu.

(2.) PETITIONER has on these grounds, prayed for quashment of the detention order.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed their reply through Shri O. P. Kalandaria, District magistrate, Udhampur who has stated that the detenu came to be detained under the provisions of the Act vide order No. PSA-2007/17 dated 19-12-2007 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention of the detenu was ordered in view of his activities being prejudicial to the security of the State. The respondents state that the warrant was executed and the detenu was taken into preventive custody on 27-12-2007 after the contents of warrant were read over and explained to him in urdu/english languages, which he understood fully as in lieu thereof, the detenu has put his signature on the executed copy of detention warrant on its endorsement. The detenu was informed vide letter No. 156/58/dmu dated 19-12-2007 about the detention and about his right to submit representation against his detention to the government, but he did not choose to file any representation.