S MOHINDER SINGH ALIAS PAPI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of 12 months on the basis of grounds of detention filed with the petition as annexure 2 which are enumerated herein below :

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the same was contrary to the provisions of law because the detaining authority has not disclosed in the order of detention as to whether he is to be tried for the commission of offences referred to in the F. I. Rs attached with the grounds of detention. It is further submitted that the order of detention has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. It is further submitted that the detention of the petitioner has directed at the most with the object of maintaining law and order problem and not public order as envisaged by the provisions of section 8 of the public Safety Act. The order is alleged to be contrary to the provisions of section 8(4) of the P. S. Act and Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. The said order has been termed as arbitrary and challenged on the basis that the grounds of detention was vague and not meet the requirements of law.

(3.) THE detaining authority in his affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was directed to be detained because his activities were considered highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order., The petitioner was detained under the provisions of P. S. Act by Harnam Sing Inspector of Police. The order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after applying its mind in a judicious manner and also after going through the facts contained in the relevant record available in his office. The detaining authority came to the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, the order of detention was passed. The grounds of detention are stated to be quite definite, relevant and valid. Sh. Kesho Prakash, Addl. Secretary to Govt. Home Deptt. has also justified the detention of the petitioner vide his counter affidavit filed in the case.