JUDGMENT The present petition has been filed by the detenu for quashing the detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/131/2019 dated 26.09.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar in terms whereof detained Bilal Ahmad Hajam S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Hajam R/o Manzmohalla, Anchar, Soura, Srinagar under Section 8(1)(a)(i) read with Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, as amended in 2012, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order. This order of detention is challenged by the detenu through his mother. 2. The order of detention is assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; (i) the grounds of detention have been fabricated by the police in order to justify the illegal detention of the detenu; (ii) the allegations made in the order of detention are vague and non-existent against which no representation can be made; (iii) the detenu had submitted representation against the order of detention but the same was not considered by the Government, as such, this has vitiated the order of detention; and (v) the Detaining Authority has not furnished all the relevant material relied upon by it, while passing the order of detention and this had prevented him from making an effective representation which had violated his legal right. 3. Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG has filed the counter affidavit as well as produced the detention record. It is submitted by him that the impugned detention of the detenu was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order similar to his past acts and prevented him from doing the same. The detenu was detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 by virtue of order dated 26.09.2019 which is impugned in this petition. 4. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention, order of detention as well as the entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority were furnished to the detenu within the statutory period as provided under Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. The Government vide its order No. Home/PB-V/85 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019 had confirmed the order of detention dated 26.09.2019. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. 6. The grounds of detention reveal that the detenu was indulged in illegal activities, leading unruly mobs, damaging public property and creating large scale law & order problems with associates and whereas, he and the likeminded youths of the area had formulated strategy for creating large scale law and order problems and to carry forwarded programmes of secessionist elements on the ground indulging in illegal activities to disrupt peace, tranquility and public order. Reportedly secessionist elements had formulated strategy to subvert Government of J&K and create large scale law and order problems. They had created plan under which large scale illegal activities were being framed and to carry out such illegal activities, services of disgruntled element was being undertaken by these secessionist elements and subject was forefront disgruntled element to carry out such programmes of secessionist, who were in lookout of suitable time to disrupt peaceful atmosphere. 7. A perusal of the record reveals that all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority had been provided to the detenu in compliance to the order of District Magistrate, Srinagar, against proper receipt. The Executing Officer, ASI Mohammad Ashraf No. 93/S of Police Station Soura handed over the contents of PSA warrants (01 leaf), notice (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier (02 leaves) and copy of FIR (02 leaves) in total (08 leaves) were also read over and explained to the detenu in Urdu/Kashmiri language which he fully understands. The detenu had also been informed of his right to make representation against the detention order to the Government. 8. It is specifically contended that the detenu had filed a representation dated 03.10.2020 through his mother against the impugned order of detention to the Principal Secretary to Government Home Department but the same was not considered and this has violated his right and, as such, detention order is vitiated. This contention is denied by the other side, it is specifically stated that the detenu despite being informed of his right to make representation had chosen not to do so. This contention is denied by the other side, it is specifically stated that the detenu despite being informed of his right to make representation had chosen not to do so. No such representation is borne out from the record. 9. It is settled proposition of law that the preventive detention is precautionary power to be exercised in reasonable anticipation. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha and another v. State of West Bengal and others, (1975) 3 SCC 198 has held that: “32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not over lap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. 33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu. 10. In Naresh Kumar Goyal vs. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 276 , the Apex Court observed as under:- “It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so.” 11. Detention order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and grounds of detention sufficient to connect the detenu with the activities which are rightly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It is also submitted that the material relief upon by the Detaining Authority has been furnished to the detenu alongwith detention order, grounds of detention against proper receipt. Preventive detention is made on precautionary measure and its use not as a punishment but as a precaution. The object is to protect the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their rights and protect them from damaging to their life and property. It is, therefore, necessary to take preventive measure in terms of Article-22(5) of the Constitution of India. 12. In Khudiram Das V. State of West Bengal and others, (1975) 2 SCR 832 , It was held that:- “……….. The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof.…………” 13. The detenu was informed of his right for making representation against the detention order, if he so desired, to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. On the basis of the FIR and the allegations contained therein, satisfaction has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority that in case the detenu was not detained, he may act in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 14. On the basis of the FIR and the allegations contained therein, satisfaction has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority that in case the detenu was not detained, he may act in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 14. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity as the Detaining Authority informed the detenu that he had the right to make a representation in the language which he understands, thus, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority had detained the detenu. The detenu was clearly informed of what actually weighed the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. The Detaining Authority had also informed the detenu that in order to stop him from indulging in the above activities, his detention under provisions of PSA was imperative as normal law was found in sufficient to stop him from indulging such activities. Thus, none of the constitutional and statutory safeguards of the detenu has been violated after the impugned detention order was passed and executed. 15. In view of the above aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents by the Registry forthwith.