MOHAMMAD LATEEF DAR Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. The detenue - Mohammad Lateef Dar, was earlier detained by the respondent No.2, in exercise of powers vested in him under clause (a) of section (8) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short Act of 1978), vide detention order bearing No. 67/DMS/PSA/16 dated 29-09-2016. The said order was challenged by the detenue before this Court in HC(P) 596/2016 and after allowing the writ petition on 02-03-2017, the order of detention was quashed by this Court and the respondents were directed to release the person of the detenue forthwith. However, instead of releasing the detenue, he was again detained by the respondent No.2 in terms of detention order bearing No. 95/DMS/PSA/2017 dated 31-03-2017. The said order was also assailed by the detenue by the medium of HC(P) No. 113/2017 and the Court, while allowing the petition on 23-01-2018, ordered for the release of the detenue. It is further stated that yet another order of detention bearing No.119/DMS/PSA/2018 dated 08-03-2018, impugned herein, has been slapped on the detenue on the same set of grounds and on the basis of same F.I.Rs as were incorporated in the earlier orders of detention. The detenue was ordered to be lodged in District Jail, Kotebhalwal, Jammu, and he continues to be there at the moment. The grounds of detention, along with the allied documents, are said to have been served on the detenue and the contents whereof, as contended, are stated to have been read over and explained to him in the language which he understood fully well.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the detenue has been deprived of the right to file an effective representation before the Detaining Authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Shopian, against the order of detention as the copy of dossier, the copies of the F.I.Rs and other connected documents have not been furnished to him. It is also argued that the detenue could not have been detained under the provisions of PSA when he was already booked in substantive offences under various F.I.Rs and was in the custody of the respondents since the year 2016. The petition, on this ground alone, deserves to be allowed and, as a consequence thereof, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of J and K Public Safety Act. 1978 (JKPSA). The grounds of detention have been conveyed to the detenue in the language with which he is conversant and these have been read over and explained to him. Therefore, the order of detention does not suffer from any vice. It has been passed with due diligence and it will sustain in the eyes of the law. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents are in tune and in line with the pleadings of the respondents.