Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 165 (JK)

Jahangir Ahmad Lone v. State

2009-04-10

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Ghulam Mohammad Lone, father of the detenue, namely, Jahangir Ahmad Lone R/O Ichgoza, Shopian, District Shopian, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the detention order bearing No.l7-DMP/PSA dated 26.07.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondents have failed to file counter, hence the averments contained in the petition have remained unrebutted. It is apt to reproduce first para of the impugned detention order herein: "Whereas on the basis of dossier placed before me by Sr. Superintendent of Police Pulwama vide his No.CS/PSA-08/11 dated 19.02.2008, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent Sh. Jahangir Ahmad Lone S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone R/o Ichgoes, Keller Tehsil Shopian District Shopian from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do;" 3. Thus a perusal of the impugned detention order itself indicates that same came to be passed on the basis of dossier and thus is suggestive of the fact that grounds of detention were not in existence at the time of passing of the impugned detention order. There is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that notice in terms of Section 13 of Public Safety Act, for making representation, was served upon the detenue. 4. Respondents have failed to adhere to the constitutional mandates as provided by the provisions of Public Safety Act, for short the Act, read with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It was obligatory upon the detaining authority to supply/furnish the material relied upon while passing the detention order to the detenue for making an effective representation which has not been done. 5. It appears that the impugned detention order came to be passed on 26.07.2008, whereas the same came to be executed on 10.09.2008, thus delay has crept in execution of the detention order which is violative of the provisions contained under the Act. 6. It appears that while passing the detention order, the detaining authority has not spelled out the compelling reasons for detaining the detenue in preventive detention despite of the fact that detenue was in custody. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that detention order merits to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 6. It appears that while passing the detention order, the detaining authority has not spelled out the compelling reasons for detaining the detenue in preventive detention despite of the fact that detenue was in custody. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that detention order merits to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The detention order is, hereby, quashed with the command to the State to release the detenue forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. 9. Registry is directed to return the record of the case to Mr. M. A. Wani, Dy. AG.