MANZOOR AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by one Shakeel Ahmad Sheikh brother of Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh S/o Late Ghulam Nabi Sheikh R/o Parimpora, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the "Detenue") challenging the order of detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/102/2019 dated 20th of August, 2019 passed by the Respondent No.2/District Magistrate Srinagar, in terms whereof, the respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred in him under Clause (a) of Section (8) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short "The Act of 1978"), has ordered preventive detention of the detenue and his subsequent lodgment at Central Jail, Srinagar.

(2.) The detenue has challenged the said order of detention on varied grounds, as detailed out in the petition. It is stated that the detaining authority has failed to apply its mind to the fact whether the preventive detention of the detenue was imperative, notwithstanding his release on bail in substantive offences. It has also been stated that the Respondent No. 2 has passed the order of detention on the dictates of the sponsoring agency, i.e. the Officer who has prepared the police dossier and no attempt has been made by the Respondent No.2 to scan and evaluate it before issuance of the order of detention.

(3.) This petition has been admitted on 20th of September, 2019, however, despite availing umpteen opportunities, the respondents have failed to file any Counter in the matter. It is a settled principle of the law of pleadings that the averments set up by the petitioner are expected to be specifically denied by the replying party. If there is no specific denial, then such an averment is deemed to have been admitted by the otherside. In the present case, it is evident that the averments set up in the petition, which were relevant and material to the case, have not been rebutted by the State. It was expected of the respondents to counter all the averments specifically and make a proper reference to the records relevant to the case. Since, the respondents have omitted to do so and have failed to specifically deny the averments made by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference.