Mohd. Ayaz Lone, S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone, R/o Binsharoo, Thathri, Kishtwar, Tehsil Kishtwar, District Doda was taken into custody on 06-05-02 in pursuance of order of detention No. 241/DMA/DET/PSA/02/97-102 dated 04-05-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag, detaining authority in this case. The detention order was, however, subsequently approved by the Government vide order no. Home/PB-V/966 of 2002 dated 8-5-2002. Detenue Mohd. Ayaz Lone has challenged the impugned order through his father Ghulam Mohammad Lone, on variety of grounds. 2. To begin with, it is submitted that the detaining authority has not supplied the material including the dossier, FIR, copy of seizure memo to the detenue though referred to and relied upon as material in the grounds of detention and thus depriving him from making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention, therefore, the order of detention is rendered bad in law. 3. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof have not been supplied to the detenue in the language understood by him nor any translated script in the language, which is understandable by the detenue, has been provided to him. Failure to do so amounts to denial of affording opportunity to the detenue to make effective and meaningful representation against the detention order, is a clear violation of Article 22(5) of die Constitution of India. 4. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detnue was already in custody in connection with a Criminal case registered against him falsely without any basis and there being no compelling reasons and cogent material available with the detaining authority for passing the detention order, which is, thus, rendered illegal and unsustainable in law. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority has drawn subjective satisfaction from the record which has been made available to him by Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag. The detention order makes a reference of report/dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag and recites that that an FIR is registered against him and there is recovery of arms and ammunition from his possession. The detention order makes a reference of report/dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag and recites that that an FIR is registered against him and there is recovery of arms and ammunition from his possession. The same record having not been annexed with the dossier and also not supplied to the detenue at the time of execution of detention order, makes it manifest that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind and on this count alone, the detention order deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that grounds mentioned in the detention order are vague being neither specific nor definite. It is clear case of non-application of mind. 5. Respondents, through the detaining authority, have filed counter wherein, it is submitted that Mohmmad Ayaz Lone, S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone, was an active member of Hizbul-Mujahideen Organization and was indulging in subversive activities which were against the security of the State and in this connection he was arrested by 7th R.R. in Andohoora Achabal, Anantnag in March 2002 and FIR No. 27/2000 u/s 7/25 of Arms Act was registered against him in Police Station Achabal. Arms and ammunition of the description indicated in the dossier were recovered from him. Lastly, it is stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of well founded material, detention order against the detenue was issued by the competent authority which was subsequently executed on 06-05-02 and confirmed by the Government on 08-05-02. Grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in the language known to him. The detenue was also informed that he can make an effective representation against the order of detention. His case was also referred to Advisory Board. It was further contended by the respondents that the provisions of Public Safety Act as well as the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution have been strictly complied with and the detention order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 6. In order to appropriate rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be apt to refer to the pleadings and the detention order. The detention order is not available on the writ file though it is found on the file produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In order to appropriate rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be apt to refer to the pleadings and the detention order. The detention order is not available on the writ file though it is found on the file produced by learned counsel for the respondents. For facility of reference, the order of detention dated 04-05-02 reads as under :- "Whereas the District Magistrate, Anantnag am satisfied with a view to prevent Mohd. Ayaz Lone S/o Gh. Mohd. Lone, R/o Binsharoo (Thathri) Kishatwar, District Doda from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to detain him under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by order that the said Mohd. Ayaz Lone S/o Gh. Mohd. Lone R/o Binsharoo (Thathri) Kishtwar District Doda be detained in Kotbalwal Jail Jammu." 7. Reading of the aforesaid order it clear manifest that the detention order recording the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority was not passed on the basis of any record or material available against the detenue. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was, therefore, without application of mind in absence of any material or record available with it against the detenue with regard to his association with active militants of Hizbul-Mujahideen outfit and participation of detenue in the subversive activities with a view to liberate the State of Jammu & Kashmir from Union of India. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that the detenue being a locally trained militant of Hizbul-Mujahideen outfit was involved in throwing bombs and causing large scale destruction and playing on evil designs it is also stated that the detenue was taken into custody under FIR No. 27/2002 U/S 7/25 of the Arms Act and recovery of grenades and arms have been made from his possession. 8. The detention order, formulated by respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate Anantnag) served upon the detenue, does not anywhere disclose the material which formed the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to issue detention order against the detenue under Public Safety Act. The detention order, taken on its face value, does not recite that any material or record was considered by respondent no. 2 on the basis of which he was satisfied that preventive custody of the detenue is essential for security of the State. The detention order, taken on its face value, does not recite that any material or record was considered by respondent no. 2 on the basis of which he was satisfied that preventive custody of the detenue is essential for security of the State. The grounds of detention are also stated to have been communicated to the detenue in the language known and understandable to him in respect of which a receipt has also been obtained from him. The service of detention order dated 06-05-02, though not found on the writ file, but available in he detention record which reads as under :- "In compliance to Distt.Magistrate Anantnag vide order No. 241/DMA/DET/PSA/2002/97-102 dated 04-05-02, the detenue namely Mohd. Ayaz Lone S/o Gh. Mohd. Lone R/o Binsharoo (Thathri) Kishatwar Doda has been taken in the custody from JIC/SOG Anantnag on 05-05-2002. The contents of the warrant have been read over to the detenue in language Urdu/Kashmir, which he understands fully. The signature of the detenue has been obtained at Mark (A). Further, the detenue is handed over to Supdt. Central Jail, Jammu, Kotbalwal alongwith detention warrant and grounds of detention today on 06-05-2002". 9. It does not indicate anywhere the material on the basis of which grounds of detention were formulated and thereafter supplied to the detenue. The material referred in the dossier and mentioned in the grounds of detention viz. FIR no.27/2002 and recovery of arms and the disclosure statement, if any, leading to the recovery of arms and ammunition from the possession of the detenue, have not been supplied to the detenue. Even the receipt showing the service of the order does not state that copy of the dossier with other material indicated in the dossier was supplied to the detenue at the time the detention order was served upon him and he was taken into preventive custody by serving Officer. 10. It is not further disclosed that the translated script of the documents considered by the detaining authority in drawing requisite satisfaction for framing the detention order in the language understandable by the detenue had been supplied to him. It also does not reveal that the detenue was allowed to make a representation against his detention order. Both these grounds have been vehemently urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner to press into service that the detaining has acted more violation than its observance. It also does not reveal that the detenue was allowed to make a representation against his detention order. Both these grounds have been vehemently urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner to press into service that the detaining has acted more violation than its observance. Detenue in absence of the communication of the grounds of detention was unable to make meaningful representation. What is indisputably gatherable from the pleadings and the record is that the detaining authority has not supplied the material relied upon in the grounds of detention including the copy of dossier, seizure memo and copy of statements recorded under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India, nor have they provided details of the specific and the alleged activities and the association of the detenue with the militant outfits. Even in the counter affidavit, respondents could not rebut and explain the grounds specifically taken by the petitioner in the petition. 10. After perusal of the detention order, it does not indicate the record or the material which became the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order against the detenue for his preventive custody. After perusal of the communication dated 06.05.2002 in respect of the communication of detention order by Police Officer in presence of serving officer, lodging the detenue in Central Jail, Kotbalwal Jammu, it has not stated anything about handing over the grounds of detention to the detenue or the material including FIR, record of statement referred in the dossier or about their supply to the detenue. It only states about the contents having been read over to the detenue in Urdu and Kashmiri which he understands fully. This is a clear violation of section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act. The detenue cannot be stated to have been communicated the grounds of detention and thereby has been deprived of making a meaningful representation against any violation and safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Apex Court in Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 1999 SCC 593, has held in para 11 of the judgement as follows:- "An effective representation can be made against the order of detention only when copies of the material documents which were considered and relied upon by the detaining authority in forming his opinion that the detention of the detenue was necessary, were supplied to him. It was only when he has looked into those documents, read and understood their contents that it can be said that the detenue can make an effective representation to the detaining authority, State or Central Government, as laid down in Art 22(5) of the Constitution. The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows 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 against the order of detention. 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 detained, in his own languages ......" 11. In the instant case, it is no where found from the record, much less, shown by learned counsel for the respondent during the arguments that copies of the reports, FIR, statement of witnesses, seizure memo, disclosure statements recorded and details about the prejudicial activities of the detenue found in the dossier and subsequently referred to in the order of detention, were supplied to the detenue, therefore, depriving him of the opportunity to make representation against his detention. The detention order does not indicate that the material was considered by the detaining authority, which formed the basis of subjective satisfaction that the detenue is required to be taken into preventive custody. There is no communication or document on record to show that the documents considered and relied upon were ever made available to the detenue and the grounds of detention were supplied to him so as to enable him to make representation against his detention. The amplitude of the safeguards embodied under Article 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and documents relied upon in supports thereof in the language understandable by the detenue and also through translated script which is understandable by the detenue. The non-supply of such material amounts to denial of providing opportunity to the detnue to make effective representation against the order of detention. The non-supply of such material amounts to denial of providing opportunity to the detnue to make effective representation against the order of detention. Therefore, non-supply of documents which are reflected in the dossier and also in the grounds of detention which became the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was likelihood of detenue being released on bail which was necessary for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there were compelling reasons for taking the detenue into preventive custody. It is necessary for him to record on the material provided by die sponsoring authority that there is likelihood of detenue being released on bail and there were compelling reasons for taking the detenue into preventive custody. Non consideration of this aspect of the matter and non-supply of the material by the sponsoring authority further strengthens the ground taken by the detenue and non application of mind and impinges upon the specific satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority in passing the detention order against the detenue for taking him into preventive custody as has been held by Apex Court in Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (8) SCC 473. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the detention order, issued by respondent no 2, cannot be sustained and is vitiated. The impugned order is illegal and is, accordingly, quashed. Respondent/authority/ officer having physical Corpus of detenue Mohd. Ayaz Lone, S/o Ghulam Mohammad Lone, R/o Binsharoo, Thathri, Kishtwar, District Doda, shall release and set him at liberty forthwith, provided the detenue is not required in any other case. 13. Copy of the order be given to the detenue free of cost. Registry to take follow up action forth with Petition disposed of accordingly.