ARIF AHMAD KHAN Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter called "Detaining Authority") in exercise of powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, passed the detention Order No. DMS/PSA/65/2021 dtd. 20/10/2021 (for short "impugned order"), in terms whereof the Petitioner namely Arif Ahmad Khan S/O Abdul Majeed Khan R/O Shaheen Colony, Noorbagh, Srinagar (for short "detenue") was ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar, later shifted to Central Jail Agra ( U.P).

(2.) Though the detenu has challenged the detention order on several grounds, but the main ground is that his representations filed against his detention have not been considered till date. It is submitted that because of non-consideration of his representations, the detention order slapped upon him is liable to be quashed. Copiesof the representations having been received by the respondents have been filed annexed with the writ petition.

(3.) The respondents through counter affidavit have defended the order of detention contending therein that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material available including the dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar that it was necessary with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the "security of the State" to place the detenu under preventive detention. It is submitted that the detention of the dentenu has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short "the Act") and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the right guaranteed to the detenu under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention transpire the activities of the detenu which, on the face of it, are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority, but to order detention of the detenu under the Act. It is then submitted that the grounds of detention sufficiently connect the detenu with the activities which are highly prejudicial to the security of the State, as such, the detention of the detenu is legal.