- (1.)CHALLENGE to order No.43/DMS/PSA/2011 dated 11.06.2011, of District Magistrate, Shopian respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Tariq- ul-Amin Alias Molvi Tariq son of Late Molvi Mohd Amin resident of Baba Mohalla District Shopian (herein after referred to as "detenue") has been placed under preventive detention, must succeed for following reasons: The Constitution of India Article 22(5) and Section 13, J&K Public Safety Act 1978, guarantee two important safeguards to the detenue first that the detenue is informed of grounds of detention that prompted the Detaining Authority to pass the detention order and second that the detenue is allowed to represent against his detention immediately after the detention order is made or executed. The Constitutional and Statutory safeguards guaranteed to the detenue are to be meaningful only if the detenue is handed over the material referred to in the grounds of detention that lead to subjective satisfaction that the preventive detention of detenue is necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or public order and further it is ensured that the grounds of detention are not vague, sketchy and ambiguous so as to keep the detenue guessing about what really weighed with the detaining authority to make the order.
(2.)THE detention order makes mention of material record such as dossier and other connecting documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while making the detention order. THE detention order also makes reference to a communication received from Superintendent of Police, Shopian. THE detention record does not establish that all the documents referred to in the detention order were supplied to the detenue. THE endorsement on the reverse of the detention order made by the Executing Officer Kamal-ud Din ASI No. 1401/S of Police Station Shopian, at the time of execution of detention order does not make a reference to the documents in question and does not record that such documents were supplied to detenue at the time of execution of detention order or immediately thereafter.
The grounds of detention make reference to the following cases FIRs, registered against detenue:-

1) FIR No.420/1999 u/s 13 Unlawful Act, 489 B&C RPC P/S Shopian. 2) FIR No.66/2001 u/s 153-A RPC P/S Shopian. 3) FIR No.109/2001 u/s 17, 148, 149, 336, 427 RPC P/S Shopian. 4) FIR No.75/2004 u/s 149, 336, 427,332,153-A, 124-A RPC P/S Shopian. 5) FIR No.76/2004 u/s 148,149, 336, 427,332,153-A,307,12- A RPC, 7/27 A.Act P/S Shopian. 6) FIR No.199/2007 u/s 489-B P/S Shopian. 7) FIR No.80/2008 u/s 13 ULA P/S Shopian. 8) FIR No.135/2008 u/s 148,149,336,332,427 RPC P/S Shopian. 9) FIR No.137/2008 u/s 148,149,336,332,436,427 RPC P/S Shopian. 10) FIR No.96/2009 u/s 147,451,427 RPC P/S Shopian. 11) FIR No.108/2009 u/s 147,336,427,323 RPC P/S Shopian. 12) FIR No.110/2009 u/s 147,148,336,427 RPC P/S Shopian. 13) FIR No.116/2009 u/s 148, 336,323 RPC P/S Shopian. 14) FIR No.122/2009 u/s 148,336,427 RPC P/S Shopian. 15) FIR No.161/2011 u/s 457, 380 RPC P/S Shopian.

The involvement of detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with the Detaining Authority while making detention order. The record does not indicate that copies of aforementioned First Information Reports, statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid case(s), were ever supplied to detenue. It needs to be noticed that the Detaining Authority, in grounds of detention after detailing background in which aforesaid cases were registered against detenue, proceeds to opine "From the above facts, it is evident that you are a hard core activist of Tehreek-e-Hurriyat and have close links with the separatists and other anti national elements and your activities are highly prejudicial to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State/Country and threat to public order and peace loving people". The material, mentioned above, thus assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the case and ought to have been provided to the detenue to enable him to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights. It is only after the detenue has all said material available, that the detenue can make an effort to convince Detaining Authority and thereafter Government, that their apprehension as regards activities of the detenue are baseless and misplaced. If the detenue is not supplied material, on which detention order is based, the detenue cannot be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of Detaining Authority to supply material relied at the time of making detention order to detenue, renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I draw support from Dhannajoy Dass versus District Magistrate (AIR 1982 SC 1315); Sofia Ghulam Mohammad Bam versus State of Maharashtra and Others (AIR 1999 SC 3051); Union of India versus Ranu Bhandari (2008, Cr. L. J. 4567); Syed Aasiya Indrabi versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (S.L.J. 2009 (I) 219); and Tahir Haris versus State and Others (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2184).

(3.)THE detenue independent of his right to file a representation against his detention to the Government had also right to submit a representation to respondent No.2 till detention order was considered by the Government and approval accorded. THE respondent No.2 was under an obligation to inform the detenue at the time of execution of detention order that he had a right to represent against his detention to respondent No.2, till detention order was placed before the Government for accord of approval. THE detention record reveals that the detenue was not so informed at the time of execution of detention order. THE endorsement on the reverse of detention order recorded by Executing Officer at the time of execution of detention order indicates that the detenue was only informed of his right to make a representation to the Government against his detention, if he so desired and not that he could also make a representation to respondent No.2 during interval of 12 days the detention order in terms of Section 8(4), J&K Public Safety Act 1978 was to stay in force. THEre thus has been infringement of Constitutional and Statutory rights available to detenue and guaranteed under Article 22(5) of Constitution and of the Act. While holding so I draw support from State of Maharashtra and others Vs Santosh Shanker Acharya, AIR 2000 SC 2504.
Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and detention order No.43/DMS/PSA/2011 dated 11.06.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian respondent No. 2, directing detention of Shri Tariq- ul-Amin Alias Molvi Tariq son of Late Molvi Mohd Amin resident of Baba Mohalla District Shopian, quashed.