1. Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai @ Waheed S/o Late Ghulam Hassana Ganai R/o Naroo Ichgam District Budgam (referred to as detenu) is seeking quashment of detention order bearing No.PSA/DMB/2009/166 dated 04.09.2009 passed by the District Magistrate Budgam (respondent No.2) under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short to be referred to as Act) through the medium of instant petition filed by his wife Mst. Shakeela. Although many grounds have been taken for the quashment of the impugned order, but Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his wisdom, has questioned its sustainability primarily on the ground of non-supply of required/sufficient material to the detenu referred to in the grounds of detention (Annexure-B) depicting the entire flashback of his activities at different stages right from year 1990 upto the stage of registration of latest FIR No. 127/2009 at Police Station Chadoora under Sections 457, 392 RPC and 7/25 I.A. Act. He submits that non-supply of the said material has deprived him of making an effective representation before the concerned authority projecting his bona fides and this is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Qayoom further submits that since the detenu was in jail and had no access even to his own documents, therefore, detaining authority should have supplied each and every document to him referred to in the grounds of detention. He then submits that irrespective of the fact that the detenu already knows the contents of the material reflected to in the grounds of detention still it is incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply all the relevant material, which exercise is admittedly not done in the present case. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order deserves to be quashed. 3. In support of his arguments, Mr. Qayoom has relied upon the following two judgments handed down by the Apex Court:- i) Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2184. ii) Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, 2008 Criminal Law Journal page 4567 (para 18). 4. Admitted position is that no counter has been filed till date despite last and final opportunity was granted for the same as is clear from order dated 25.11.2009. Even thereafter, the present petition stands adjourned twice and during this period also this exercise could be done. However, Mr. 4. Admitted position is that no counter has been filed till date despite last and final opportunity was granted for the same as is clear from order dated 25.11.2009. Even thereafter, the present petition stands adjourned twice and during this period also this exercise could be done. However, Mr. Chesti has produced the detention record for the perusal of the Court. I, therefore, do not detain myself any further. 5. During the course of arguments, Mr. Chesti has conceded before me that the material, which is relied upon in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu in the jail. He, however, submits that the nefarious activities depicted in the grounds of detention do not make out any case for quashment of the impugned detention order as the detenu has active nexus with the militants outfits referred to in the grounds of detention and as such, his activities are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. 6. No doubt, if one goes by various activities of the detenu described in the grounds of detention (Annexure-B), which has been made the basis of passing the impugned order of detention, on the face of it, they appear to be very serious in nature but once the whole aspect is tested on the touchstone of legal scrutiny, that too, in the light of the submissions advanced by Mr. Qayoom, in my view, the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed. 7. Admittedly, the detenu was in jail when the impugned order was passed as is clear from the grounds of detention itself. His activities are shown right from year 1990 including his involvement in substantive offence in case FIR No. 19/2002 registered under Arms Act and his earlier detention under the Act in year 1996. However, from 2002 upto 2009, no case is shown to have been registered against him and ultimately, he is shown to have been arrested in case FIR No.127/2009. From the aforesaid factual aspect, one position is very clear that the detenu could not be in the possession of any document with regard to his alleged involvement of year 1990 upto 2002 when he was sent to jail after he was arrested in case FIR No. 127/2009. Possibly, it could not be. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply all the relevant material. Possibly, it could not be. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply all the relevant material. Simply referring to the past record would not suffice the matter. Therefore, non-supply of the material has prevented him from making an effective representation, which was his constitutional right. 8. In Thahira Haris case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Qayoom, the Apex Court in para 25 observed thus:- "25. This Court in Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & others (1996) 6 SCC 593 para 11 observed that effective representation by the detenu can be made only when copies of the material documents which were considered and relied upon by the Detaining Authority in forming his opinion were supplied to him." 9. In the aforesaid judgment, their Lordships while quashing impugned detention order of the detenu, ultimately observed as under:- "29. On proper construction of clause (5) of Article 22 read with section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act, it is imperative for valid continuance of detention that the detenu must be supplied all documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. In the instant case, admittedly, the relied upon document, the detention order of Anil Kumar was not supplied to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from making effective representation which has violated his constitutional right under clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution." 10. Para 18 of Union of India v. Ranu Bhandaris case (supra), another judgment referred to by Mr. Qayoom, also needs to be referred to in this context. It reads thus:- "18. Mr. Choudhary derived support for his aforesaid contention from the decision of this Court in M. Ahmedkutty v. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC 1], wherein it was reiterated that the right under Article 22(5) is a right to make an effective representation and when some documents are referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention, without copies of such documents, the grounds of detention would not be complete. The detenu, therefore, had the right to be supplied with the grounds of detention along with the documents which were referred to or relied upon and if there was failure or even delay in furnishing those documents, it would amount to denial of making an effective representation. The detenu, therefore, had the right to be supplied with the grounds of detention along with the documents which were referred to or relied upon and if there was failure or even delay in furnishing those documents, it would amount to denial of making an effective representation. It was also observed that it was immaterial whether the detenu already knew about their contents or not, but the non-supply of the copies thereof was fatal as was held in Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashra [(1981) 2 SCC 709]. It was emphasized that in order to appreciate this point it would have to be kept in mind that the detenu is in jail and has no access even to his own documents." 11. Following the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and in the light of the admitted position that no material was supplied to the detenu in the jail, in my considered view, the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed solely on this ground as it has resulted into an infringement of his valuable right as enshrined in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. 12. Although Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not developed any other point questioning the sustainability of the detention order, yet while perusing the record, I find another flaw in the present case inasmuch as the detention order passed by the District Magistrate Budgam sans application of mind. The specific case of the detenu is that after he was arrested in FIR No. 127/2009, he filed bail application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam and in terms of order dated 20.08.2009 he was directed to be released, but before the order could be served on the SHO, he was detained under the Act. Annexure-C is the Robkar in this regard. This shows that the prosecution agency was very well in know of the fact that the detenu had already been ordered to be released on bail before passing of the detention order on 04.09.2009 whereas in the grounds of detention, it is said "No doubt, you are presently booked in substantive law but there is every likelihood that you may be bailed out by the Court and will again indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State". 13. The aforesaid contrary factual position reflects that the grounds of detention have been prepared just in a casual manner. 13. The aforesaid contrary factual position reflects that the grounds of detention have been prepared just in a casual manner. After all detaining authority is supposed to verify all the facts from the police before preparing the grounds of detention. It is not a sheer formality and has its far reaching effect. In the present case, it appears that either the District Magistrate was not apprised of the factual aspect of the matter or he has not taken pain to know about this all. However, taking it from any angle, it can be safely said that the detaining authority has not applied its mind before passing the order of detention and adopted a usual casual approach. This again is a flaw, which touches the core of the case. I do not want to delve deep into this aspect any more for the reason that I have already held the detention order as unsustainable on the other vital flaw discussed hereinabove by me. 14. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that No.PSA/DMB/2009/166 dated 04.09.2009 passed by the District Magistrate Budgam (respondent No.2) is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the person of Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai @ Waheed S/o Late Ghulam Hassana Ganai R/o Naroo Ichgam District Budgam forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15. Detention record be returned to Mr. Chesti against proper receipt. Disposed of.