1. Activities of the detenue have been noticed to be highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order constraining the Detaining Authority to pass the order of detention bearing No. DMB/PSA/192 dated 01.08.2010. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. 2. The activities of the detenue relatable to the stone pelting allegedly have been so fierce and criminal which have caused much damage not only to the property but to the peace, in addition have been causing injuries to the police and security persons, shutting down of the shops and damaging vehicles. The registra­tion of as many as five cases constrained the Detaining Authority to pass preventive order so as to deter the detenue from such violent activities. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detenue allegedly being involved in cases registered as FIR Nos.253, 261, 289, 299 and 302 of 2010 registered in Police Station, Budgam was never apprehended nor detenue had applied for bail, therefore, detention was not required, otherwise compelling rea­sons were to be recorded for so doing. 5. This contention of the learned counsel is to be rejected as rightly projected by the learned counsel for the respondents. When the activities of the detenue are such which are to cause much damage not only to the property, vehicles but even to human being and it is only when he has been indulging in such activities, number of cases have been registered against him, he appears to be an unruly person. The compelling reasons for detaining a person while in custody in connection with other cases have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances. The circumstances as projected in the grounds of detention are such which would provide for having recourse to preventive measures. The Detaining Authority appears to have applied his mind while noticing the activities of the detenue, more particularly registration of number of cases against the detenue and has thereafter passed the order of detention. 6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue has not been furnished the copies of detention order, FIRs and the state­ments recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, so has been deprived of making an effective representation. 7. 6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue has not been furnished the copies of detention order, FIRs and the state­ments recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, so has been deprived of making an effective representation. 7. This submission is also without any substance as the perusal of the detention record would reveal that the detenue has been informed, as required in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 13 of Public Safety Act, about his right to make representa­tion to the Government. He has not chosen to make any representation. Question of making an effective representation would arise when a person given chance makes a representation and then subsequently he can claim that he could not make an effective representation for want of non supply of the material considered by the Detaining Authority for passing the order of detention. Whey detenue has not made any representation has not been explained in the petition. In case detenue would have reacted on the basis of information as given to him by the Detaining Authority about making representation, by filing representation, even in the case of its rejection, it would be said that the detenue has been deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. 8. Next it is contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent, irrelevant and unfounded. 9. This submission is also bereft of any sanctity as the copies of FIRs available on record clearly indicate when, where and what types of activities were allegedly carried into effect by the detenue. Same has been considered while preparing the grounds of detention. 10. Next it is contended that the detenue being illiterate and grounds of detention being in English when the detenue can only understand Urdu and Kashmiri but no translated script in Urdu Kashmiri was provided to the detenue. 11. The certificate available on the detention record as produced clearly indi­cate that the contents of the grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the detenue in his own language which he understood fully and in support thereof his signature has been taken on the certificate, which has not been controverter. 12. Next it is contended that the detenue has been lodged in Sub Jail, Heera Nagar which is 350 kilometers away from his home town. 13. 12. Next it is contended that the detenue has been lodged in Sub Jail, Heera Nagar which is 350 kilometers away from his home town. 13. The submission has weight as the Detaining Authority has not given any reason for lodgment of the detenue in Sub Jail, Heera Nagar. The Government shall consider the shifting of the detenue from Sub Jail, Heera Nagar in a jail located within Kashmir province as shall be permissible. 14. For the stated reasons petition fails so is dismissed. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.