MOHD AKBAR SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention of the detenues namely 5/Shri Abdul Manan Deva, Gh. Qadir Gani and Abdul Gani Bhat has been challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground that their detention being not in accordance with the provisions of the Public Safety Act, was liable to be quashed. The detention could not be ordered both for the purposes of the security of the State as also for public order. The detaining authority has passed the orders mechanically without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The grounds of detention were vague, ambiguous and not proximate with the object of detention. The non-application of mind of the detaining authority was apparent from the facts that no mention has been made regarding their detention even at the time of the passing of the order either in the detention order or the grounds of detention supplied to the detenue. The grounds of detention allegedly being unfounded, vague, unreal imaginary and concocted renders the detention illegal and liable to be quashed. The interpolations in the order of detention and grounds thereof clearly show the reckless manner in which the detaining authority has acted without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case warranting the detention of the detenue. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon 1980(1) 5.CC. 132, 1985 S.L.J. 19, AIR, 1985 S.C. 764, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 852, 1971(3) S.C.C. 693, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1408, A.I.R. 1975 s.c. 1516, A.I.R. 1972 s.c. 1749, A.I.R. 1975 5 c. 781, 1981 s.c.c. 132, to convass that if anyone of the grounds served upon the detenue is found to be vague, the whole of the detention is liable to be quashed, the delay in detaining the detenue on the alleged ground of some circumstances having taken place much earlier renders the detention invalid. The pendancy of criminal cases would not justify the preventive detention particularly when the grounds are vague and the names of associates of the detenue allegedly having committed the offence are not furnished to him or that the detention is resorted to for both the purposes i.e. security of the State or the Public interest, would render the detention illegal and liable to be quashed.

(2.) The respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petition being pre-mature was liable to be dismissed because the detenues without availing of the remedy of representation to the Advisory Board have no right to file the writ petition. The mere fact that the detenu was in the police custody at the time of passing of the detention order would not render it invalid and liable to be quashed. The detention orders have been passed to avert serious threat to the maintenance of the public order and the security of the State. The grounds of detention were en founded on the basis of which the detaining authority had assumed satisfaction before passing the detention orders.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. I. Detenue Abdul Manan Deva has been detained on the following grounds: