FAYAZ AHMAD GANDROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this writ of habeas Corpus, the petitioner has challenged the detention order No: PSA/DMS/31/87 dated: 3 -7 -19 -87 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, Under Section 8 of the Public Safety Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) detaining Fayaz Ahmed Gandroo s/o Ghulam Ahmad R/o Mir Mohalla, Malaratta, Srinagar, on various grounds as enumerated in the petition.

(2.) THE detaining authority has filed his reply affidavit controverting the allegations of the petitioner.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, it was noticed that the grounds of detention do not disclose as to what material was placed before the detaining authority to satisfy him about the activities of the detents, allegedly, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Even, if any such material was placed before him, it does not appear to have been furnished to the detenue along with grounds of detention, so as to enable him to make a representation against his detention. The communication addressed to the Superintendent, sub Jail, Hiragana, by the District Magistrate under his No: ST/DMS/525 -97/87 dated: 8 -7 -1987 shows that only grounds of detention or copy of some FIRS have been delivered to the detenue No copy of dossier has been furnished to him. In absence of such material, how could the detenue make a representation against the order of his detention? Non -supply of material to the detenue is an infringement of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, as it deprives him from making an effective representation against the order of his detention, The detaining authorities usually take it a routine matter and they never show as to what material has been supplied to the detenue. It is their legal duty to show it in the very letter addressed to Jail authority where the detenue is to be lodged, as to what material is to be. Delivered to the dà ((THELAW))tentes along with the grounds of detention. They have to show every bit of it with minute details, as otherwise it will detract from the constitutionality of the order itself. After all, the grounds of detention are like a charge sheet which must be based on some definite material If the grounds of detention are framed on no material, any order passed on such grounds would be without jurisdiction and arbitrary in nature. No authority is competent under law to take away the liberty of a citizen of India except in due course of law. The law of detention under the Act provides that the detaining authority before detaining any person there under must be satisfied about his activities which are allegedly, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of state. He cannot derive his satisfaction from nought. Unless there is some material before him, how can he be satisfied about such activities. The material which satisfied him must be supplied to the detenue to enable him to make a representation against his detention, as otherwise it could deprive him of his fundamental right, thus making the very order bad under law. If the detaining authority has failed in his duty on all these counts, this court cannot escape its Constitutional obligation to go into the matter and restore the liberty of the victim. On this ground alone, which goes to the root of the impugned order, the detention order deserves to be quashed.