JUDGMENT 1. Ghulam Qadir Raina has been detained by District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent no. 2 under his Order No. F-125/DMA/PSA/ Det/99/2015-21 dated 30.11.1999 u/s 8 of J&K Public Safety Act., 1978 on the ground of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention is for a period of two years. The detention has been approved by the Government under provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. This detention and the order thereto is under challenge in this petition. 2. Detenue Gh. Qadir Raina is alleged to be a political activist belonging to a party opposing the ruling party of the State. He is detained in order to settle scores with him for his not of having canvassed and worked for a candidate who contested against a candidate of the ruling party. The detenue was picked up during night from his home and kept in JIC, Khanabal, Anantnag and later moved to Police Station Kokernag before he was lodged in Central Jain Kathua. Here after about 15 days he was handed over photostat copies of order of detention and grounds thereof (Annexures PA and PB). The grounds of detention in fact are reproduction of police dossier. The detention suffers from non-application of mind. Detenue being an illiterate is unable to read Urdu and English language and was not explained the detention order in Kashmiri language which he understood. He was not even given copies of the detention order at the time when detenue was taken in custody though he was already in punitive detention under a substantive offence in a case registered at P/S Dooru. He had not even applied for bail in the regular case as such the detention order cannot be sustained on this court too. 3. Respondent through detaining authority District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent no. 2) has filed counter affidavit. The above pleaded allegations to assail the detention order, have been countered by submitting that the order of detention was passed on consideration of the matter, after the report/dossier received from SSP Anantnag was taken note of and assessed, besides the entire situation was taken stock of. The order has been passed by the detaining authority (respondent no. 2) on application of mind. The order has been passed by the detaining authority (respondent no. 2) on application of mind. The detention order as also the grounds with material including dossier received from SSP, Anantnag and all other relevant material were supplied to the detenue and he was apprised of his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired. The material relating to the substantive offences as also other material connected with his detention was explained to detenue in his mother tongue which he understood and a receipt therefore was obtained from him. The detaining authority was aware of detenues punity custody and having regard to the circumstances that the accused in punitive detention are getting bail and that ordinary law was hardly sufficient to deter him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, preventive order in question was passed. 4. The preventive detention record produced by the GA is available with the file. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. Record pursued. Matter considered. 6. The contention of the petitioner that there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority is not born on record. The detaining authority had the whole material including the record pertaining to substantive offence(s) as also the report/ dossier of SSP and other material with him. He has been as well aware of situation, basic facts antecedents and nature of allegations levelled against the detenue. The over-whelming material and record negates the espoused plank of political rivalry as a reason for detention. The detenue has been involved in number of incidents for which various cases have been registered within jurisdiction of different Police Stations of District Anantnag connected with firing, planting and fabrication of explosive devices and recovery of arms and ammunition in various places together with the past antecedent activities of the detenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the detention order on this court is vitiated. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the detention order on this court is vitiated. 7. In PL Lakhanpaul vs. Union of India (AIR SC 1967 908 (915) a five member constitutional bench of the court on the question of satisfaction of empowered authority in the background of Defence of India Rules 1962 observed: - "¦ So long as that decision was arrived at on materials, since this court does not in appeal against such a decision, it would not sit ordinarily examine the adequacy or the truth of those materials and would not interfere with that decision on the ground that if the court had examined them it would have come to a different conclusion. It is, therefore not possible to agree with the contention that this is a case of a malafide exercise of power or a case of non-application of mind by the authority concerned". 8. The contention that the detention order is vitiated in so far as the detenue was in punitive detention and had not applied for bail cannot be also countenanced in the over all fact situation and the circumstances of the case. In the grounds as also in the counter filed by the detaining authority it has been specifically mentioned that the detaining is aware of detenues detention under substantive offences under different cases registered at different police stations but the detaining authority has specifically averred that as the law courts as per provisions of law have been regularly admitting the accused to bail, the detaining authority having regard to the detenue antecedent activities thought and perceived that the ordinary law was not sufficient to deter him from acting in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. In view of this uncontroverted averment and stand of detaining authority it is obvious that the detaining authority has made out a case of compelling reasons to order preventive detention of the detenue, notwithstanding his punitive detention for substantive offences. The report and the grounds sufficiently make it clear that the detaining authoritys perception and thought of detaining the detenue best he may not be released on bail is not wholly without basis. The detenues past activities and nature thereof in just a position with his thought and apprehension of detenues likelihood of getting bail also furnished basis for passing detention order. The detenues past activities and nature thereof in just a position with his thought and apprehension of detenues likelihood of getting bail also furnished basis for passing detention order. In the facts and circumstances of the case detention authority has applied its mind for passing detention order so as to deter and prevent the detenue from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. There is no bar to hall a person in preventive detention even if he is in custody/ punitive detention. 9. In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelwat case (AIR 1990 SC 1196), the Apex Court observed: "That the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in detention and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention". 10. In Poonam Lata vs. M.L. Wadhawan and another (1987) 4 SCC 48, the Supreme Court observed: - "It is thus clear that the fact that the detenue is already in detention does not take away the jurisdiction of the detaining authority in making an order of preventive of that type is to satisfy the court when detention is challenged on that ground that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue was already in custody and yet he was subjectively satisfied that his order of detention became necessary. In the facts of the present case, there is sufficient material to show that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in custody when the order was made, yet he was satisfied that his preventive detention was necessary. We do not think there is any force in this contention of Mr. Garg. Since both the contentions canvassed are rejected the writ petition is dismissed". 11. The contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioner based on aforementioned ground cannot be countenanced on merits and is rejected. The petitioners counsel further submits that as the detenue is an illiterate person and he has not been explained the order and grounds and even copies thereof have not been supplied, therefore he cannot be legally said to have been communicated the grounds and thereby he is prejudicially effected in making a representation against detention. 12. The petitioners counsel further submits that as the detenue is an illiterate person and he has not been explained the order and grounds and even copies thereof have not been supplied, therefore he cannot be legally said to have been communicated the grounds and thereby he is prejudicially effected in making a representation against detention. 12. Counsel for State submits that the detenue has been supplied on the grounds with whole material on which detention is based. The detenue has acknowledged receipt of grounds as also whole material including the dossier, the basis of the grounds and order. The detention record has been translated and explained to detenue in Kashmir! language. The officer executed the order as also handed over the grounds with material to detenue. He has discharged his mandatory duty by explaining in mother tongue to the detenue the entire scenario which led to his detention". 13. From perusal of counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority what the GA submits as above is fully made out. All this has not been controverted by the detenue. No rejoinder thereto has been filed. The detention record produced shows that while executing the detention order the same with accompanying material was explained to detenue in Kashmiri language which detenue understood. He was handed over entire detention papers. He has also executed receipt under his signatures which is attested by Superintendent of Central Jail, Kathua. The police report, dossier is accompanying the order. In such circumstances the contention of the counsel that the dictum of Smt. Umar Razia Bakshi vs. UOI (AIR 1980 SC 1751) applies to the case cannot be upheld. The record bears endorsement of supply of material a documentation of the grounds having been explained to the detenue in a language which he understood. The affidavit of the detaining authority and the detention record of the Govt. fully explains the position that besides oral explanation of the order with grounds he was supplied copies in a concise form of the whole detention record. Obviously the contention of the Ld. counsel on this score too have to be rejected. 14. In result for the aforesaid reasons the order of detention in my view is not found vitiated and cannot be ruled as invalid. The detention is in order. With the result that the Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed.