1. The subject Tariq Majeed Chowdary was arrested on 21.11.2001 under Section 3/4 POTO registered at Police Station Shaheed Gunj Srinagar. During this punitive detention, district Magistrate Srinagar, Respondent No.2 detained him under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act under Order No. DMS/PSA/42 dated 04-01.2002. this order is under challenge in this petition on number of pleaded grounds, allegedly covering violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act of 1978. Further Mr. M.A. Qayoom, confined challenge to the detention order on following grounds:- 2. first, that the detenue was not given order with grounds of detention and was not even supplied material documents, the basis of the detention. Second, no compelling reasons are made out to sustain the preventive detention at a time when the subject was already being held under punitive detention in a regular case. Moreso, when the subject has not moved any application for bail in the regular case, FIR 147/2001 of Police Station Shaheed Gunj and third that despite petitioner™s father having made representation to Government against detention pursuant to the letter dated 04-01-2002 addressed to him, the Government neither considered it nor any decision was taken thereto. Non consideration of the representation has obviously vitiated the detention. 3. In reply, Mr. R.Q. Gadda, submits that the detenue has been communicated order and the detention grounds. It has been explained to him in the language which he understood. Receipt had been obtained from the detenue is token of his having received the order and the grounds. No material was supplied to detenue as the grounds of detention alone is the material on which is based the detention order. The petitioner detenue is admitted not to have moved the court for bail in regular FIR, yet detenue™s activities have compelled the State to pass the detention order. 4. From counter as also the detention file, produced by Mr. R.Q. Gadda, GA, it is more than made out that the detenue has been served the order of detention as also the grounds of detention. Endorsement on the back of the detention order and the receipt acknowledging the handing over of grounds of detention are born on record. Subject had even signed the receipt and the endorsement and same is attested by Dy. Endorsement on the back of the detention order and the receipt acknowledging the handing over of grounds of detention are born on record. Subject had even signed the receipt and the endorsement and same is attested by Dy. Superintendent Central jail from Kotbalwal, No doubt detenue is spoken as an illiterate person, yet he has been explained the grounds and order in his own language, which he did understand well. In such circumstances, no right of detenue is violated. In LPA(HC) 57/2001, a Division Bench of this Court observed:- 5. "....Now the question arises that whether non supply of copy of grounds of detention in the language which is understood by him would make any difference because the detenue is an illiterate person. In our view, since admittedly, the detenue is an illiterate person, instead of supplying copy of grounds of detention if it is explained properly and fully in the language understood by him, would be the sufficient compliance of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Consititution. Para 3(h) of the petition reads as under:- "That the detenue has not been given any material or documents relied upon against him for his detention. Non-furnishing of the material also renders his order of detention liable to be set aside." 6. Though in counter, the paragraph is not specifically denied, but reading from the counter filed in another 108 of 2002 adopted for this Writ Petition, interalia in paras 5 and 10 it is averred: "5.... It is sumitted that the detenue has been furnished with the grounds of detention, which alone is the material based for detaining the detenue... "10...Ground 10 is denied in view of above reply, The material in the shape of grounds of detention stands supplied to the detenue. No other material has been relied." 7. The impugned detention order on detention file reads as:- "Whereas, I, Abdul Hamid, I.A.S. District Magistrate Srinagar, am satisfied on the basis of records received from SSP Srinagar that with a view to prevent Shri Tariq Majeed Chowdhary...." 8. It is obvious that the stand put forth in the counter and the order of detention with regards to the material and record, basis of the detention in question, is quite contradictory. It is obvious that the stand put forth in the counter and the order of detention with regards to the material and record, basis of the detention in question, is quite contradictory. On the one hand, the detaining authority is positive to say that the detention order is based on record, which the detaining authority received form SSP Srinagar and satisfaction is drawn from such record. On the other hand, in counter the very Officer states that the grounds of detention alone is the material for having passed the impugned order. Obviously, truth has not on record. Contextually, the grounds of detention do show that the grounds in terms are based on some record and material. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the subject has been communicated the detention order to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention in question within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the constitution. 9. In Naseer Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Addl. Chief Sect. Home and Anr(1999 SLJ 241), a Division Bench of this court to which I was a party, observed:- "...The grounds of detention given 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 it is pleaded, muchless shown, that the copy/copies of these reports 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." 10. In shopian Gulam Mohd Bham Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (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 a 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 detailed, in his own language.." 11. The contention that there are no compelling reason for the authority to have passed the detention order, in question, when the subject was already being held in regular case FIR No. 147/ 2001, under Sec. 3/4 POTA has weight. It is admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the State that so far no instructions have been received to indicate that POTO is not to be applied in the existing cases, like one at hand. 12. Mr. M.A. Qayoom makes submission in line with and in support of pleaded ground 3© that he had not filed any application for bail in FIR 147/2001 in court, Therefore, the question of petitioner™s likelihood of being released on bail is out of question. The antecedents and history of detenue even as seen from the grounds do not show any compelling reasons for the authority to detain him. First and second paragraph are introductory and speak of petitioner™s connection with the militant out-fits whereas, paras 3 and 4 speak of his arrest in FIR 147/2001, under Section 3/4 POTO and recovery of some ammunition. Petitioner™s claim that he has not moved any application for bail, is not denied by the Government Advocate and it is not even so in the Counter. 13. The concept of likelihood of detenue moving application for bail in the facts and circumstances of this case is not a cogent and sufficient reasons and detention based on that is liable to be quashed. Likelihood to be released on bail is wholly a different concept in terms contemplating that there is strong possibility of detenue being released when the subject is booked in POTO when no application is moved for bail. The question of imminent possibility of release appears not a reality. After all, such an interference is to be drawn on material on record and cannot be suggested as ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority. This apart the creptic history and no antecedents in the grounds on record, also lend credence to the inference that the question of compelling reasons has not been legally addressed to and given due weight. The compelling reasons are not based on any material/documents on record. The detention even on this court is vitiated. 14. The Contention regarding representation of detenue™s father need not be gone into, and detain us in the view as above. 15. In result, the detention order is found vitiated and non sustainable. The compelling reasons are not based on any material/documents on record. The detention even on this court is vitiated. 14. The Contention regarding representation of detenue™s father need not be gone into, and detain us in the view as above. 15. In result, the detention order is found vitiated and non sustainable. The order is quashed. Respondents/detaining authority/ officer having physical corpus of the detenue Tariq Majeed Chowdry S/o Abdui Majid R/o Saripayeen, Hari Sigh High street Srinagar, aged 24 years, is directed to release the subject and set him at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any offence, case or matter, 16. Copy of this order shall be given to petitioner free of cost and communicate the order to concerned for follow up action. Record produced by Mr. R.Q. Gadda, GA, is returned to him in open Court.