JUDGMENT : 1. Pursuant to order of detention bearing No.DMR/INDEX-01 of 2017 dated 19.08.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Rajouri, detenue has been taken into preventive custody so as to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. In the grounds of detention it is alleged that the detenue is involved in number of bovine smuggling cases and is posing a serious threat to the public order in the district Rajouri. 3. Perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that against the detenue three cases have been registered; one as FIR No. 77/2014, another as FIR 53/2016 and third as FIR 21/2017 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 188 RPC & 3 PCA Act. Detenue by now is in custody for more than six months. 4. In such type of cases relatable to the maintenance of public order initially period of detention has to be for a period of three months extendable upto maximum of one year. 5. The first ground projected by the petitioner is that he has not been informed to represent against the detention before the District Magistrate, which is a serious violation of guaranteed right. Submission has substance. From the records it is clear that the detenue has not been informed to represent against his detention before the District Magistrate. Similar issue has cropped up for determination before the Division Bench of this Court in case Tariq Ahmad Dar Vs. State of J&K and others reported in 2017(3) JKJ 684; Para 15 of the judgment shall be advantageous to be quoted:- “15. From a reading of the said decision, it is abundantly clear that non-communication of the fact that the detenue can make a representation to the detaining authority, till the detention order is not approved by the Government, would constitute an infraction of a valuable Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as also of the right under Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Failure of such non-communication would invalidate the order of detention.” 6. Next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the material forming base for detention has not been supplied to the detenue as a result whereof he has been deprived of making effective representation. The said fact is supported by the detention records as produced by learned AAG. 7. Next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the material forming base for detention has not been supplied to the detenue as a result whereof he has been deprived of making effective representation. The said fact is supported by the detention records as produced by learned AAG. 7. When the entire material is not supplied to the detenue, his guaranteed right of making effective representation has been violated which renders the order of detention as unsustainable. It shall be quite relevant to quote as what has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham vs. State of Maharashtra and others( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ):- “…The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenue to make a representation against the order of detention. A representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenue and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained, in his own language.” 8. It shall also be relevant to quote Para 4 of the judgment passed in case Javaid Ahmad Naikoo vs. State of J&K and others reported in 2017(3)JKLT 298:- “4. Right to liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can be negated in view of Article 22(3) (b) of the Constitution, which is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. The said exception authorizes the concerned authorities to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person. Such power has to be exercised in a manner, which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. In short, an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the preventive order, still then procedural safeguards are to be adhered. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed de-horse the law. In short, an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the preventive order, still then procedural safeguards are to be adhered. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed de-horse the law. In this view, I am fortified by the judgment rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case captioned Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 .” 9. Host of other grounds have been projected by learned counsel for the petitioner, but since order of detention does not survive on the aforesaid two grounds, therefore, other grounds are not required to be dealt with. 10. For the stated reasons, order of detention bearing No. DMR/INDEX-01 of 2017 dated 19.08.2017, being unsustainable, is quashed. Detenue shall be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 11. Detention records as produced be returned to learned AAG. 12. Disposed of as above.