ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the parties are finally heard on the merits of the case. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the detenu Nazir Ahmed Gujar from prison against the order of detention dated 6-11-2003. The order of detention reads thus: "Whereas, Nazir Gujar, s/o Ajmad Din Gujar, Rio Handli Para, Siyalkot, Pakistan is not an Indian national and the Government is satisfied that the said Shri Mohd. Nazir Gujar is a foreigner within the meaning of Foreigners Act; and whereas, the Government is satisfied that with a view to regulating his continued presence in the State, it is necessary so to do. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(i)(b)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 the Government hereby direct that the said, Nazir Gujar, s/o Ajmad Din Gujar, Rio Handli Pora, Siyalkot, Pakistan be detained for a period of 24 months with effect from 14-11-2003 and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar." 3. During the pendency of the petition, after service of notice on the State of Jammu and Kashmir, this Court passed an order on 4-3-2005, directing the State to furnish necessary record to substantiate that the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu and he was afforded an opportunity of making representation. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Public Officer of the Home Department of Jammu and Kashmir Government in which it has been stated that after passing of the order of detention it was sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar where the appellant was lodged as prisoner to serve the detention order and the grounds of detention. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tihar Jail Authorities to show that the order of detention was served on the detenu and he was granted opportunity to represent against the same. 5. On the scanty material produced by the State, we are not satisfied that the detenu was given opportunity to represent against the order of detention and the grounds of detention. There is nothing to accept that the detention a order was, in fact, served on the detenu. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State also informs that a criminal case under the Arms Act is pending against the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Bararnula. There is nothing to accept that the detention a order was, in fact, served on the detenu. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State also informs that a criminal case under the Arms Act is pending against the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Bararnula. We do not wish to express anything so far as that case is concerned. 7. In our considered opinion, it is not possible to sustain the order of b detention because it has neither been served on the detenu nor was he given an opportunity to represent his case from the jail. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 6-112003 passed against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner would be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.