Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 41 (JK)

Ali Mohd. Parray v. State

2007-04-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2007
1. Petitioner/detenue has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for quashing detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/72/05 dated 21.01.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar in terms of the provisions-of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (for short the Act�) whereby and where under detenue came to be detained in detention. 2. The allegations against the petitioner/detenue as projected in the grounds of detention and other material read with counter are that detenue is timber smuggler and is involved in smuggling of such activities. Detaining Authority after deriving satisfaction came to the conclusion that detenue is to be detained in detention and, accordingly, passed the order. Sufficiency of material and subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned before this court and cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition. It is domain of Detaining Authority to derive satisfaction. Apex Court in judgment Ibrahlm Nazeer Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3565 also observed that subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned before the court and could not be made subject matter of the writ petition. This view is also fortified by the judgment in case Sunila Jain Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1062 and also in case A. Geetha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4382. 3. Petitioner/detenue has annexed documents contained annexure A to J with the writ petition. It appears that annexure J is a report made by the Additional DIG CID, CIK on 6.6.2006 to Special Secretary to J&K. Said report also indicates that detenue and another person namely Abdul Rashid Ganaie were evading arrest. It is profitable to reproduce last para of the said report hereunder: In connection with the seizer of timer, case FIR no. 8/2006 u/s 379 RPC, 6 Forest Act was registered in PS Kangan and case challenged against nine persons including All Prengi and Ghulam Nabi Parray. While seven persons were bailed out by the court, All Prengi and antochr person Abdul Rash id Ganaie evaded. All Prengi is also involved in two other cases (FIR no. 58/ 2001 and 23/2003 PS Kangan) challan of which has been produced in the Court of Law. .........Ghulam Nabi Parray is a contractor by profession and there is no criminal record against him in Police records.� 4. All Prengi is also involved in two other cases (FIR no. 58/ 2001 and 23/2003 PS Kangan) challan of which has been produced in the Court of Law. .........Ghulam Nabi Parray is a contractor by profession and there is no criminal record against him in Police records.� 4. Prima-facie it appears that petitioner was evading arrest and delay cannot be attributed to the detaining Authorities and could not be made basis for quashing detention order. Apex Court in case Vinod K. Chawla Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4080 held that a person-detenue who evades execution of detention order cannot raise plea that detention order is bad. 5. It appears that Detaining Authority at the time of passing the detention order and its execution has complied and adhered to all safeguards as provided by the Act i.e. material, grounds of detention and dossier came to be supplied to the petitioner detenue. Serving Officer has categorically reported that the grounds of detention were read over to the detenue on 8.9.2006 that is the date of execution of detention order. It also appears that notice in terms of section 13 of the Act came to be served upon the detenue which respondents have specifically pleaded in the counter. It is profitable to reproduce relevant para of the parawise report as under: That somehow the detenu knew about the detention order and he evaded and avoided his arrest despite efforts of the executing agency. Finally the warrant came to be executed and the detenue was arrested on 8.9.2006. He was detained after contents of warrant were read over and explained to him in Kashmiri/urdu languages which he understands as is evident from the executed warrant whereupon he has put his signature in English on the endorsement of the order. The grounds of detention were also served to the detenu on 9.9.2006 alongwith letter no. DMS/PSA/Misc/327-30/05 dated 21.1.2006 whereunder the detenu was informed of his detention and that of his right to file a representation to the Government against his detention which he did not choose to submit for the reasons not known to the respondents. The detention record was forwarded to the Advisory Board for opinion. DMS/PSA/Misc/327-30/05 dated 21.1.2006 whereunder the detenu was informed of his detention and that of his right to file a representation to the Government against his detention which he did not choose to submit for the reasons not known to the respondents. The detention record was forwarded to the Advisory Board for opinion. After perusal of record and hearing the detenu in person, the advisory board opined that the detention of the detenu was warranted under law as the normal law did not deter him from acting as a smuggler. The action of District Magistrate was confirmed and file sent down to the Government for appropriate action as per law. Consequently on further examination of record and perusal of opinion of the State Advisory Board, the Government order no. 2348 of 2006 dated 27.10.2006 and order that he be detained for a period of 12 months and lodged in Kathua District Jail. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that the material relied upon by the petitioner indicates that his brother Ghulam Nabi Parray was not involved in any illegal activies-timber smuggling but appears prima-facie against the detenu. The record and counter clearly indicate that all the safeguards have been adhered to. 7. In the given circumstances of the case, I do not find that the Detaining Authority has committed any illegality in passing the detention order which is valid one and warrants no interference. 8. Having glance of the above discussion, the petition merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.