JUDGMENT 1. The detention of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) vide its Order No.03 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. Vide order impugned, the District Magistrate, Jammu, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 , has directed detention of the detenu in the Central Jail, Kote Bhalwal, Jammu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention has been ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu inter alia on the ground that the detenu is a notorious/habitual hard-core criminal having been involved in series of criminal cases regarding which as many as 07 FIRs in the Police Stations of R.S.Pura, Akhnoor and Miran Sahib have been registered. The detaining authority has given the details of the criminal cases registered against the detenu and nature of involvement of the detenu. On the basis of the material supplied by the Police in the form of a dossier, the detaining authority has concluded that the detenu is an incorrigible and dreadful criminal, who has caused mayhem in bringing about instability in public order. The detaining authority, on the basis of the material before it, arrived at satisfaction that given the nature of activities, the detenu has been indulging in, consistently over a period of time, it is necessary to place him under the preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is on the basis of these grounds, the requisite satisfaction appears to have been arrived by the detaining authority with regard to the necessity to put the detenu under detention. 2. The detenu has called in question the order of detention primarily on the following grounds:- (i) That the detaining authority has not communicated the detenu the grounds of detention nor was he ever made to understand the accusations and the allegations contained in the grounds on the basis of which his detention has been ordered. 2. The detenu has called in question the order of detention primarily on the following grounds:- (i) That the detaining authority has not communicated the detenu the grounds of detention nor was he ever made to understand the accusations and the allegations contained in the grounds on the basis of which his detention has been ordered. (ii) That the detention order has been executed by one Sub Inspector Shakeel Ahmed and there is no certificate on oath given by the aforesaid Officer whereby it could be established that the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu in the language he understands. (iii) That the relevant material, particularly, the police dossier, which was relied upon by the detaining authority for issuing the order of detention was never supplied to the detenu. (iv) That the grounds of detention are totally irrelevant and vague and do not constitute sufficient material on the basis of which the detaining authority could derived the satisfaction with regard to the necessity of placing the detenu under detention. (v) That the detention order earlier passed by the detaining authority on the same grounds was quashed by this Court in HCP No.36/2018 and therefore, there was no new material to put the detenu under detention. The detention on the self-same grounds is, thus, not sustainable. (vi) That the order impugned also suffers from non-application of mind. (vii) That the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which was required to be mandatorily approved by the Government within 12 days from the date of its passing, has not been approved by the Government and therefore, further detention of the detenu pursuant to the impugned detention order is bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu who supplied the dossier to the District Magistrate, Jammu- detaining authority has filed the reply affidavit. The detaining authority has, however, chosen not to defend its order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, I am of the view that the order of detention impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed on the solitary ground that despite number of grounds specifically raised by the detenu in his petition, the detaining authority has chosen not to file any affidavit in rebuttal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, I am of the view that the order of detention impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed on the solitary ground that despite number of grounds specifically raised by the detenu in his petition, the detaining authority has chosen not to file any affidavit in rebuttal. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu who might have supplied the requisite material in the shape of the dossier to the detaining authority is not a person competent to depose on behalf of the detaining authority. It is the District Magistrate concerned/detaining authority which is enjoined by the Section 8(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 to consider the relevant material before it and arrive at a satisfaction that it is in its opinion necessary to put a person in preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order. Whether or not, there was application of mind by the detaining authority; whether or not, the requisite satisfaction was derived by the detaining authority independently on the basis of the relevant material placed before it; are the matters, which can be explained only by the detaining authority. It is not only surprising, but, shocking to note that the District Magistrate, Jammu, who while passing the impugned order of detention, which resulted in curtailing the liberty of the detenu, has conveniently shifted the burden of defending its order on the Senior Superintendent of Police. Filing of the reply affidavit by the Senior Superintendent of Police in reference of detention order clearly substantiate the allegation of the detenu that there was no independent application of mind by the detaining authority and that the detention order was passed only at the behest of police. More astonishing it is to note that despite direction passed by this Court on 31.10.2019, the complete detention record was also not made available to this Court to find out as to whether the rigors of detention law as contained in the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 have been strictly followed by the detaining authority or not. More astonishing it is to note that despite direction passed by this Court on 31.10.2019, the complete detention record was also not made available to this Court to find out as to whether the rigors of detention law as contained in the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 have been strictly followed by the detaining authority or not. There is nothing before me to find out as to whether the order of detention was ever approved by the Government and there is nothing placed on record to indicate as to whether the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board or not and if placed, what was the opinion of the Advisory Board. Even the confirmation of the detention order, if any, made by the Government is also not shared with this Court. 5. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order, which is primarily based on the solitary fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in several criminal cases is bad in the eyes of law and clearly falls foul of Article 22 of the Constitution of India . It is also important to note that a similar order of detention against the detenu was passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu on 09.06.2018 and the same was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.12.2018 passed in HCP No.36/2018. The detaining authority, as is apparent from the grounds of detention, has not even shown the awareness that for the same and similar activities, the detention order passed by it was quashed by this Court. Six FIRs, reference to which has been made in the grounds of detention, pertain to the period which was covered by the earlier order of detention. It is only FIR No.16/2019 registered in Police Station, R.S.Pura for the offences under Sections 307/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act , which pertains to additional criminal activity attributed to the detenu. The detaining authority, however, has not exhibited any awareness as to whether the detenu was under arrest or not in FIR No. 16/2019. There is no awareness shown by the detaining authority as to why substantive law would not be adequate to prevent the detenu from indulging any criminal activities. In short, the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is writ large. 6. There is no awareness shown by the detaining authority as to why substantive law would not be adequate to prevent the detenu from indulging any criminal activities. In short, the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is writ large. 6. It may be remembered that a detenu is not a convict and the power to detain is not a power to punish for offences, which an executive authority in his subjective satisfaction believes a citizen to have committed. When ordinarily criminal law is sufficient to take care, resorts to preventive detention are to be avoided. It follows that if a person is liable to be tried or is actually being tried for criminal offence, but, the ordinarily criminal law will not be able to deal with the situation, only then can the preventive detention law be taken recourse to. The detenu has urged several other grounds to attack the order of detention, but, same are not required to be gone into for the simple reason that the order of detention is vitiated for the reasons taken note of hereinabove. The callousness with which liberty of a citizen has been curtailed coupled with manner in which the order of detention has been sought to be defended speaks volume about the manner in which the citizens of this country are dealt with by those who are enjoined to protract the life and liberty of the citizens of this country. 7. Without saying much I allow this petition and quash the order of detention impugned in this petition. The respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. 8. Detention record from District Magistrates office produced in the case, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.