- (1.) PETITIONER , the father of detenu Anayatullah, impugns the detention order no. Det/PSA/06/239 dated 03.03.2006 purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag against the detenue, with prayer for its quashment.
(2.) GROUNDS pleaded are that the impugned order of detention does not show as to on what materials the detaining authority assumed subjective satisfaction regarding necessity of passing the detention order, and that the grounds of detention even though vague and irrelevant were not furnished to the detenu, nor was lie informed of his right to make a representation against his detention. In counter affidavit, respondent no.2 has stated that activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to the security of State and his detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in such acts, which was further approved by the Government and the State Advisory Board constituted u/s 14 of P.S. Act., and grounds thereof were explained to the detenue in Urdu and 'Kashmiri language understood by him. During course of submissions the appearing counsels have reiterated the contents of their pleadings.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. From perusal of pleadings and contentions raised at bar the main ground of attack projected by the petitioner against the detention in question is, that the grounds of detention were not duly communicated to the detenu which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention and thereby he was deprived of an important constitutional right. On examination it percolates that memo of the grounds of detention appended with the petition is written in English which as per counter affidavit has been explained to the detenu in Urdu and Kashmir language. That however, appears to be quite bald an assertion because of not being substantiated with any supporting material, particularly anything on behalf of the person or the official who is supposed to have translated the grounds to the detenu. According to well settled law (AIR 1980 S.C 1751) in such cases the position is, that the officer who translates the grounds of detention to the detenu in the language understood by him should at least put in an affidavit that he did so or there should be a certificate of satisfaction on part of the detaining authority that the grounds of detention were so communicated to the detenu. Nothing of the sort is forth coming from the records particularly because the detention file pertaining to present detenu has not been furnished by the respondents counsel. In addition to that is another circumstance, perhaps not duly noticed by the respondent -State. Records, on the file contain a duly issued and un -rebutted medical certificate to the effect that the detenu is a cancer patient in third stage of the disease. This fact should ordinarily have dissuaded the respondent State from passing the detention order in question, for the simple reason that with his certified medical status, the detenu could perhaps not be categorized as a threat to security of the State. However for what has been said in the preceding paras, the detention order in question appears to be bad otherwise also.;