JUDGMENT 1. By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and veracity of the order No.20/DMB/PSA of 2021 dated 16.12.2021, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora- respondent No.2 herein, in terms whereof, Tawqeer Ahmad Sheergojree S/o Abdul Ahad Sheergojree R/o Naaz Colony, Bandipora (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been ordered to be taken into preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal). 2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the Constitutional procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. 3. Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. That the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. That the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198 , Boriahan Gorey vs. State of WB, (1972) 2 SCC 550 , Ashim Kumar Rav vs. State of WB, (1973) 4 SCC 76 , Abdul Aziz vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1973) 1 SCC 301 and Debu Mahato vs. State of WB, AIR 1974 SC 816 . The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitioner has received detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (nil) (total 05 leaves), and in token whereof, his signatures have been obtained on 'receipt of grounds of detention', which forms part of detention record. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the copies of the police dossier have been furnished to the detenue. Rather the record produced by the respondents corroborates the fact that copy of the police dossier that has been heavily relied upon by the detaining authority while framing the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. 6. It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to make an effective and purposeful representation which is his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, unless and until the material, on which detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention, renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I am fortified by the judgments rendered in Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ) and, Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. While holding so, I am fortified by the judgments rendered in Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ) and, Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors. ( AIR 2009 SC 2184 ). 7. In Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others' ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ), the Supreme Court has observed as under: '.....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. In Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) S SCC 440, the Supreme Court has, while relying on its earlier judgment Khudiram Das v. State of W.B, (1975) 2 SCR 81; Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531 ; Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 544 ; Lulluabhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 427 ; Kamla Kanyalal Khushalaniv. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 1 SCC 748 and Sunil Dutt v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC, in paragraph 10 of the judgment, has held as under: 'Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly merge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases : (a) all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than five days ordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention and (b) all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution.' 9. From the foregoing discussion of law on the subject, it is clear that an order of preventive detention becomes unsustainable in law if the detenue has not been provided with all the material that has formed basis of his detention. As already noted, in the instant case, the copy of the police dossier which is the sole basis of the detention of the petitioner, has not been furnished to him. Hence, the impugned order of detention has been rendered unsustainable in law. 10. For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, unless, of course, he is not required in connection with any other case.