Tashi Rabstan,J. -
(1.)District Magistrate, Pulwama- respondent no.2 here (for brevity 'detaining authority"), has, by Order no. 120/DMP/PSA/19 dated 16.10.2019, placed Riyaz Ahmad Bhat S/o Gh. Nabi Bhat R/o Karimabad, Tehsil and District Pulwama (for short 'detenu") under preventive detention, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and throws challenge thereto on the grounds tailored in petition on hand.
(2.)The case set up by the petitioner in instant petition is that detenu was arrested in the first week of October, detained illegally for several days and thereafter was implicated in FIR No. 22/2018 under Sections 307 RPC, 727 A. Act and 3/4 Exp. Subs Act and FIR No. 25/2018 under Sections 307 RPC, 7/27 Arms Act by the Police Station, Pulwama and thereafter was placed under preventive detention in terms of impugned detention order.
2.1. It is averred in petition that procedural safeguards under the Constitution of India and envisaged in terms of J&K Public Safety Act, have not been complied with by respondents while ordering detention of detenu.
2.2. It is contended that grounds of detention, on the basis whereof respondent no.2 has derived satisfaction, are vague, equivocal, obscure, indefinite, not connected or not proximately with the detenu and are mere assertions of detaining and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. The case mentioned in grounds of detention has no nexus with detenu and has been fabricated by police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenu.
2.3. It is also contended that the allegations as reflected in the grounds of detention are vague and don't justify the passing of detention order on the basis of such allegations. It is further contended that the detaining authority has mentioned two FIRs in the grounds of detention, however, no specific allegation has been given regarding the detenu in the cases mentioned in grounds of detention nor any details like month, date or place of occurrence has been given. It is also contended that there is no past alleged activity attributed to the detenu and there is no allegation of his involvement in the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention. The respondents without taking recourse to normal law have resorted to preventive detention which in the given circumstances is unjustified and unreasonable.
2.4. It is also averred that the respondents have not provided copies of the documents referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority, enabling the detenu to make an effective representation.
2.5. It is claimed by petitioner in petition that detenu was not informed that he has a right to make a representation against his detention order to the detaining authority nor the respondents disclosed before whom the authority of Government he can make the representation, and neither the respondents disclosed him the time frame within which he can make the respective representation, which amounts to violation of detenu's rights.
2.6. It is maintained that detenu has a constitutional and statutory right to know grounds of detention and right to representation against grounds of detention and for that purpose detenu was entitled to complete translated copy of grounds of detention as well as material relied upon by detaining authority in grounds of detention that too in language understandable to him and those grounds were also required to be read over and explained to detenu in the language known and understandable to him as the script of grounds of detention are very cryptic and in technical legal language.
2.7. It is maintained that detenu, who was already in custody of police in respect of aforesaid FIRs and there was no need to pass detention order against him as allegations are such that there was no immediate possibility of his being released on bail inasmuch as there was no compelling reasons given in grounds of detention for passing order of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred judgment reported as AIR 1990 SC 1272 in support of his arguments.
(3.)Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents.