Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai, was detained for a period of 12 months in Central Jail, Srinagar under order DMS/PSA/80 dated 04-08-1998 of District Magistrate, Srinagar under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1 978, allegedly with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. He was taken in preventive custody on 20-7-2000, under the aforementioned detention order. The order as also the detention is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition on grounds both factual and legal as put forth in the petition. The grounds include non-supply of the material referred in the grounds and detention order; alleged failure to supply translated version of the grounds in urdu or Kashmiri language which detenue understood and thereby adversely effecting the petitioner is make representation against the detention to the Government. Besides, the detention is also challenged on allegations of contravention of the provisions of Public Safety Act and failure to adhere to the time schedule provided under the Act. Respondent No. 2 has filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of other two respondents on the basis of his access to the record and claim of being conversant with the facts of the case notwithstanding, the order of detention having been passed by his successor, the then District Magistrate, Srinagar. The passing of the impugned order of detention is not denied and taking detenue in preventive custody on 20-7-2000 is not also denied. The contents of the warrant of detention are averred to have been read-over and explained to detenue in Urdu/ Kashmiri language which detenue did understand, who in lieu thereof has put his signature on the executed copy of detention order. The detenues case has been examined by the Advisory Board constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The Board has confirmed the Government action in ordering detention of the detenue under the impugned order. The detention order is alleged to be based on the activities of the detenue which are prejudicial to the security of the State. The grounds have been supplied to him without any material or record. FIR implicating the accused is stated to be not relied upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner solicits and urges following two grounds in support of his contention that the impugned detention in this case, cannot be sustained. The grounds have been supplied to him without any material or record. FIR implicating the accused is stated to be not relied upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner solicits and urges following two grounds in support of his contention that the impugned detention in this case, cannot be sustained. First, the learned counsel submits that the material considered by the detaining authority, the then District Magistrate, Srinagar basis of detention, as referred in grounds, has not been at all supplied to the detenue and thereby the order as well as the grounds have not been at all communicated to the detenue, thereby prejudicially affecting his right to make representation. Second, the learned counsel solicits that despite the detenue being taken in preventive detention way back on 22-6-1998 in FIR 179/98 under section 7/271. A. Act, registered at Police Station Parimpora, and the fact that he continued in such detention the order of detention was not at all implemented for over two years till 20-7-2000 and more so, when there is nothing to show that the detaining authority had any compelling reasons to pass the detention order in question. In reply the learned Government Advocate, has contended that the ground of detention (Annexure-Pl) accompanying the order of detention alone has been relied on. Neither FIR nor any other record or material has been considered while passing the detention order. After the detenue was supplied the copy of grounds (Annexure-Pl), he cannot claim to have been prejudiced in. making an effective representation against the ordered detention to the Government. The counsel further submits that as the said Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai was in custody, therefore, warrant of detention could not be executed and it was only on 20-7-2000 that the order of detention was executed and the detenue taken in preventive custody under the order. It merits to be noted that though District Magistrate Srinagar who has passed the detention order which is challenged in this Habeas Corpus petition alone is a party, the District Magistrate Kupwara has also filed a counter presented by the said Government Advocate Mr. A.M. Warali, in the Registry. This counter is ditto copy of the counter filed by District Magistrate, Srinagar Strangely enough, this counter of syed Haq Nawaz, District Magistrate Kupwara, speaks of access to the record and his being conversant with the facts of the case. A.M. Warali, in the Registry. This counter is ditto copy of the counter filed by District Magistrate, Srinagar Strangely enough, this counter of syed Haq Nawaz, District Magistrate Kupwara, speaks of access to the record and his being conversant with the facts of the case. The said Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai had earlier filed Habeas Corpor Petition 416/98, challenging the detention order in question. But in circumstances singularly peculiar to this Habeas Corpus Petition it was dismissed on 12-10-1999 for non-appearance of the petitioners counsel, on assumption, based on a signal of Addl. DIG of police and CID Sgr, purportedly placed on record by some Government Advocate, to indicate that the said Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai is residing at his native place after being released on bail, though it is nobodies case that the said Mukhtar Ahamd Ganai was ever released on bail after he was arrested and taken in punitive custody on 22-6-1998 in FIR 179/98 of police station Parimpora Srinagar. Now adverting back to the merits of the submissions of the counsel for the parties, let us first refer to para-5(d) of the petition, which reads as : ....That the detenue has neither been served with the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of detention has been supplied to him. Non supply of the material referred to in the grounds of detention along-with the detention grounds to the detenue has been prevented him for making an effective representation against his detention, consequently the detention, consequently the detention of the detenue has been rendered void and illegal.� In para-5 of the counter filed by Shri Bipul Patak, District Magistrate, Srinagar, it is averred : 5... That the detention of the detenue is based on the grounds of detention which give a clear account of the activities of the detenue that are highly prejudicial to the security of the state and warranted detention of the detenue under PSA. The grounds stand supplied to the detenue. No other material or record has been relied for detention of the detenue. Even FIR which has a passing reference in the grounds has not been relied." The order of detention DMS/PSA/80 dated 4-8-1998 (Annexure-B) opens as : ... The grounds stand supplied to the detenue. No other material or record has been relied for detention of the detenue. Even FIR which has a passing reference in the grounds has not been relied." The order of detention DMS/PSA/80 dated 4-8-1998 (Annexure-B) opens as : ... Whereas I, Tanveer Jehan, District Magistrate Srinagar is satisfied on the basis of record made available to me that with a view to prevent Shri Mukhtar Ahmad Ganai.......� Conjoint reading of the above petition plea, counter allegation and the order of detention would fairly and un-ambiguously reveal that in passing the impugned detention order, the District Magistrate Srinagar has based the detention on regard which was made available to her. Copy of grounds (Annexure-P1) shows that the recitals of the detenue being a trained militant of a banned terrorist organisation; having acquired training in the use of arms and ammunition; having hurled grenades and fired upon security forces and recovery of arms and ammunition and registration of case thereto, are based on material and record supplied to the District Magistrate. All this material/record has entered consideration of the detaining authority followed by passing of the impugned order by the detaining authority. The record made available by the learned Government Advocate fairly shows that report/dossier has been supplied to the District Magistrate by the Senior Superintendent of Police Srinagar, on which detaining authority has based its order of detention. The respondents have nowhere stated that the material, dossier or report or any other record was ever supplied to the detenue. In fact in para-5 of the counter, it is specifically mentioned that: No other material-or record has been relied for detention of the detenue. Even FIR has a passing reference in the grounds has not been relied.� Contextually, the record reveals that what has been supplied to the detenue on 20-7-2000, is only copy of the detention order which was read over and explained to him in the language which he understood and a receipt thereto has been obtained. Besides, handing over of the detenue to Central Jail Srinagar is evidenced by the receipt on record. There is nothing on record to show that grounds were supplied to the said detenue. Besides, handing over of the detenue to Central Jail Srinagar is evidenced by the receipt on record. There is nothing on record to show that grounds were supplied to the said detenue. In such circumstances, the allegation of the detenue not having been supplied the material referred in the order and the grounds, and thereby having been prevented from making an effective representation against the detention is in fact very much uncontroverted. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that all the material/documents/statements incorporated in and forming part of the grounds were supplied to the detenue. Mere recital of the grounds of detention is no substitute of communication of the grounds. In Naser Ahmad Sheikh v. Addl. Chief Secretary Home and Anr. (1999 SLJ 241) a Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party observed : .....The grounds of detention give out that the alleged prejudicial activities came to be attributed on the basis of the reports made available to the detaining authority by the concerned SSP. Nowhere is it pleaded much-less shown, that the copy/copies of these reports of the police on which the detaining authority based its satisfaction to pass the detention order were supplied provided to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the order.� In Sophia Gulam Mohd Bhan v. State of Maharashtra and others, (AIR 1999 SC 3051), the Apex Court in the context of communication of grounds� held: - ... The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flow from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenue to make representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenue and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained, in his own language...� It is manifest that the basic facts and material having a material bearing on the satisfaction and conclusion of the detaining authority in passing the detention order not having been communicated to the detenue, the detenue cannot be said to have been communicated the grounds for making an effective and meaningful representation within conspectus of law laid down in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. From record it is seen that the detenue was arrested in FIR 179/98 of Police Station Parimpora in connection with seizure and recovery of arms and ammunition oh 22-6-1998. The detenue appears to have been in custody of the State al-through till he was taken in preventive custody on 20-7-2000, under the impugned order. There is nothing on record to suggest that in between the detenue was not with the authorities. It is not even alleged in counter that the detenue was not with the State authorities. No explanation whatsoever is given for not executing the detention order during the period of over two years. Merely because in an earlier H. C. Petition 416/98 which petition was dismissed for non-appearance, a copy of alleged communication addressed to Sr. Addl. Director. General of Police, CID, J&K, Srinagar was placed on record to indicate that the said detenue was at his native place when this communication is neither an attested nor certified copy nor is it supported by an affidavit or some other material on record, it cannot be held to be gospel truth. In such circumstances,, the order of detention appears to be bad in so far as the live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention is no more existing. Due to unreasonable delay, the very link between the grounds and the purpose of.detention is snapped. In K.P.M. Basheer v. State of Karnataka, and Am. (AIR 1992 SC 1353) it is observed: ...under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained since the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention is snapped on account of the undue and unreasonable delay in securing the appellant/detenue and detaining him...� In result, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention as also the impugned order of detention is pronounced vitiated and declared as illegal with the consequence that the detention order is quashed. Respondents/detaining authority/officer having corpus of the detenue Miikhtar Ahmad .Ganai S/o Ghulam Nabi Ganai R/s Magreepora Khanda Budgam, is directed to release him from custody and set him at liberty forthwith, provided the detenue is not required in any case or substantive offence including FIR 179/98 registered at Police Station Parimpora. Copy of this order be given to petitioner free of cost. Communicate order to the concerned. Record has been returned to Mr. A.M. Watali, Govt. Advocate.