JUDGMENT Mohan Lal, J. - Petitioner/detenue Aquib Ahmad Regoo age 20 years S/O Gh. Nabi Regoo R/O Khrew District Pulwama through his mother namely Mehmooda seeks quashment of detention order No. 22/DMP/PSA/2022 dated 08-04-2022 by instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India purported to have been passed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama) with consequential prayer for his release forthwith. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the passing of impugned detention order, petitioner has questioned it's legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds:- (i) that the petitioner is driver by profession not involved in any activity prejudicial to the security of state and public order; petitioner was called by police station Khrew and when he appeared there, he was taken into custody and implicated in FIR No. 65/2021 u/ss 13 ULAPA wherein he was bailed out by the court of competent jurisdiction by default bail on 01-07-2021 but was not released from the custody and was shifted in another FIR bearing No. 44/2021 and now has been booked under PSA despite being in custody of the state in FIR 44/2021 of police station Khrew; (ii) that the petitioner/detenue has not been furnished the grounds of detention and other connected documents which swayed the mind of detaining authority, whereby, he has been debarred to make effective and purposeful representation to the Govt. therefore, his right as provided u/s 22(5) of the constitution of India r/w Sec.13 of Public Safety Act have been breached; (iii) that the grounds of detention are formulated by the SP concerned as the dossier submitted by the SP is the ditto copy of the grounds of detention, in the detention order it has been reflected by the detaining authority that the detenue is under proper remand and can be bailed out which is incorrect, subjective satisfaction has not been derived by the detaining authority itself which is sine-qua-none for passing the order of detention, therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority; (iv) that that the representation submitted before detaining authority to the Govt. has not been considered by the respondents which is serious infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w 13 of Public Safety Act; (v) that the grounds of detention does not disclose any imminent threat to the security of state or public order, allegations leveled against the detainee/detenue are purely criminal in nature, detaining authority has failed to show how the ordinary law of land is not sufficient to deal and deter the detainee from indulging in activities which are criminal in nature, moreso, the detaining authority has not assigned any compelling and cogent reasons for passing the order of detention, subjective satisfaction has not been derived by the detaining authority; 2. Counter has been filed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama) wherein it has been specifically averred, that the detenue was informed about his right to submit representation against his detention, brother of detenue has filed representation which was considered and rejected on 14.05.2022 and forwarded to central Jail Kote Bhalwal Jammu to hand over the same to the detenue for information and to explain it in the language understood by him. It is contended, that the detention of detenue has been passed in accordance with provision of PSA, grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant, there is no vagueness and staleness in the grounds of detention, the incidents clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the answering respondents, impugned detention order has been passed by competent authority with complete independent appreciation of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and also after perusing the dossier furnished by police concerned and supported by record/material. It is further contended, that the activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to security of state, therefore, to prevent him from acting in such activities, he has been detained strictly in accordance with provisions of PSA, moreso, the adequacy of the material on which respondent has drawn satisfaction is not open to judicial review, the warrant has been executed and petitioner/detenue was taken into preventive custody after the contents of warrant were read over and explained to him and in the lieu thereof the detenue has put his signature on the execution report. It is moreso contended, that detenue has been informed about his right to submit representation to the Govt., the impugned detention order is legal and justified as due care and diligence has been taken by the detaining authority while passing the detention order, petitioner/detenue has not approached the court with clean hands as the contentions made in the writ petition are baseless and merit outright rejection. It is contended, that if the detention order is issued on more than one ground independent of each other, the detention order will survive even if one of the grounds is found to be unfounded or legally un-sustainable, and in the case in hand detention order has been issued on more than one ground which does not get vitiated even if one of the grounds turns affirmative, prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition. 3. Sh. Mohd Ashraf Wani Ld. Counsel for petitioner/detenue while reiterating the grounds reflected in the memo of petition, has sought the quashment of the impugned detention order and release of petitioner/detenue by canvassing arguments, that the dossier and other connected documents which has swayed the mind of detaining authority (R-2, District Magistrate Pulwama) to pass order of detention viz; the copies of FIR, statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.pc/seizure memos in regard to cases bearing FIR Nos. 65/2021 registered u/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of P/S Khrew and FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 UAPA registered at police station Pampore have not been supplied to petitioner/detenue which has prevented petitioner/detenue to make effective representation to Govt., non-supply of the material thereof vitiates the detention order. 65/2021 registered u/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of P/S Khrew and FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 UAPA registered at police station Pampore have not been supplied to petitioner/detenue which has prevented petitioner/detenue to make effective representation to Govt., non-supply of the material thereof vitiates the detention order. It is argued, that petitioner/detenue was arrested in FIR No.65/2021 u/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of P/S Khrew and in the said FIR he was granted default bail on 01-07-2021 in terms of section 167 of Cr.pc by the court of competent jurisdiction, however, in order to continue his detention, petitioner/detenue was again implicated in FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) registered at police station Pampore and in the said FIR detenue has not applied for bail and even there was no likelihood for grant of bail by the court of competent jurisdiction in view of the bar created by Sec. 43-D of UAPA, and when the detenue was already in custody, he could not have been taken into preventive custody which vitiates the detention order. It is moreso argued, that petitioner/detenue filed a representation through his brother which forms part of the record before Financial Commissioner, but on 25-04-2022 the counter affidavit provides that representation has been considered by District Magistrate and stands rejected, the communication was addressed to District Magistrate and only copy was forwarded to him, in terms of Sec. 13 of PSA the representation has to be considered by the Govt. viz; Financial Commissioner and non-consideration thereof amounts to serious infraction of Article 22 (5) r/w Sec. 13 of PSA rendering the detention order illegal, un-constitutional and liable to be set aside. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/detenue has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2184 [Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors], (ii) Case No. HCP 170/2019 ([WP Cri) No. 170/2019] (Ghulam Qadir Rather-Petitioner Versus State of J&K and Ors) & (iii) 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC) [Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs State and Ors]. 4. Sh. Asif Maqbool Ld. Dy. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors], (ii) Case No. HCP 170/2019 ([WP Cri) No. 170/2019] (Ghulam Qadir Rather-Petitioner Versus State of J&K and Ors) & (iii) 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC) [Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs State and Ors]. 4. Sh. Asif Maqbool Ld. Dy. AG for respondents has defended the passing of impugned detention order and has sought the outright rejection and dismissal of the writ petition by vehemently articulating arguments, that the documents/material basing the issuance of detention order have been supplied to petitioner/detenue, there has been subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, even in the case of a person in custody a detention order can be validly passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody. It is argued, that even if on the date of passing the detention order if there is a subjective satisfaction the detenue was confined in jail and the detaining authority has arrived at conclusion that there is real and imminent possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail, preventive detention order can be passed. It is further argued, that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India is to see whether order of detention has been passed on any material before it, it can examine the material on record only for the purpose of seeing whether order of detention has been based on no material, the satisfaction maintained in Section 3 of the Act is satisfaction of the detaining authority and not of the court, the court can only examine whether grounds disclosed in the detention order are relevant to the object of preventive detention Act. To buttress his arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) AIR 1991 (SC) 1640 [KAMARUNNISSA AND OTHERS-APPELLANT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER-RESPONDENT], (ii) 2015 CRI. L.J. 1364 SUPREME COURT [The Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order- F) and Anr. V. Nabila and Anr.], (iii) (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases 216 [STATE OF GUJARAT-Appellant Versus ADAM KASAM BHAYA- Respondent] and (iv) (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 601 [UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-Appellant Versus ARVIND SHERGILL AND ANOTHER-Respondent]. 5. I have heard and considered rival arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties, gone through the grounds of detention and detention record made available by Ld. Dy. 5. I have heard and considered rival arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties, gone through the grounds of detention and detention record made available by Ld. Dy. AG and have also meticulously scanned the ratios of the judgments relied by Ld. Counsel for the parties. 6. The 1st argument portrayed by Ld. Counsel or petitioner is, that the dossier and other connected documents which has swayed the mind of detaining authority (R-2, District Magistrate Pulwama) to pass order of detention viz; the copies of FIR, statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.pc/seizure memos in regard to cases bearing FIR Nos. 65/2021 registered u/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of P/S Khrew and FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 UAPA registered at police station Pampore have not been supplied to petitioner/detenue which has prevented him to make effective representation to the Govt., non-supply of the material thereof vitiates the detention order. In AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2184 [Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/detenue, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority while passing detention order prevents the detenue from making effective representation to the Govt. whereby detention order gets vitiated. In another case No. HCP 170/2019 ([WP Cri) No. 170/2019] (Ghulam Qadir Rather-Petitioner Versus State of J&K and Ors) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/detenue it has been held that where the detenue was not supplied with material relied by the detaining authority the detention order gets quashed. In the case in hand, on perusal of the detention record it is clearly depicted that respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama) has issued the detention order against petitioner/detenue on 08-04-2022 and the execution report with the detention record demonstrates that the impugned detention order alongwith grounds of detention and documents/material viz; copies of FIR No. 44/2021u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 UAPA registered with police station Pampore and FIR no. 65/2021 U/S 13 of UAPA of P/S Khrew alongwith statements of witnesses and other relevant documents have been furnished to petitioner/detenue in Central Jail Kote Bhalwal Jammu on 12-04-2022 against proper receipt by executing officer namely, Inspector Waseem Gul PID No. EXK-1092 of DPL Awantipora. The arguments portrayed by Ld. 65/2021 U/S 13 of UAPA of P/S Khrew alongwith statements of witnesses and other relevant documents have been furnished to petitioner/detenue in Central Jail Kote Bhalwal Jammu on 12-04-2022 against proper receipt by executing officer namely, Inspector Waseem Gul PID No. EXK-1092 of DPL Awantipora. The arguments portrayed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the documents/material basing the issuance of detention order have not been supplied to the petitioner, are therefore, legally unsustainable, repelled, rejected and discarded. The case laws (Supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, therefore, are no help to him. 7. The 2nd argument urged by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is, that petitioner/detenue was arrested in FIR No.65/2021 u/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of P/S Khrew wherein he was granted default bail on 01-07-2021 in terms of section 167 of Cr.pc by the court of competent jurisdiction, however, in order to continue his detention, petitioner/detenue was again implicated in FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) registered at police station Pampore and in the said FIR detenue did not apply for bail and even there was no likelihood for grant of bail by the court of competent jurisdiction in view of the bar created by Sec. 43-D of UAPA and when the detenue was already in custody, he could not have been taken into preventive custody which vitiates the detention order. In 2017 (II) SLJ 681 (HC) [Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs State and Ors] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the Division Bench of J&K High Court held, that the detenue cannot be detained under PSA when he is already in the custody of police authorities. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in, 2015 CRI. L.J. 1364 SUPREME COURT [The Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order-F) and Anr. V. Nabila and Anr.] wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that when a detenue is in custody and likely to be released on bail, the conclusion arrived by the detaining authority that there is real and immanent possibility of the detenue being enlarged on bail cannot be said to be erroneous and the detenue can be detained in preventive custody even if already in custody. In view of the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra) in the case of ?Nabila and Anr? which has a binding effect upon all the Courts of the Country, the ratio laid down in Farooq Ahmad Sheikh's case (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner pales into insignificance, and the law is now\ well settled that when a person is already in custody he can again be detained under the provisions of PSA. It is unambiguously reiterated here, that impugned grounds of detention in it's para 2 depict that the detaining authority has arrived at reasonable apprehensions that petitioner/detenue may get bail in FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38 & 39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of P/S Pampore and recycle himself into anti national activities, therefore, reasonable satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. The arguments canvassed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was already in custody in FIR No. 44/2021 he could not have been detained under PSA, are legally unsustainable, repelled, rejected and discarded. 8. The 3rd argument propounded by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is, that petitioner/detenue's representation through his brother has not been considered and decided by Financial Commissioner which amounts to serious infraction of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w Sec. 13 of J&K Public Safety Act rendering the detention order illegal and liable to be set aside. Per-contra Ld. Dy. AG has vehemently argued, that brother of the petitioner namely Mohd Ashraf Regoo filed representation which was considered and rejected on 14.12.2022 and the decision thereof was forwarded to him in Central Jail Kote Bhalwal Jammu in the language understood by him. It is pertinent to mention here, that perusal of detention record depicts that one Mohd Ashraf Regoo (brother of petitioner/detenue) has made representation on behalf of petitioner/detenue to Financial Commissioner (Addl. Chief Secretary Home Department J&K Civil Secretariat Srinagar) for revoking the impugned detention order of the petitioner and setting him at liberty and copy whereof has been supplied to District Magistrate Pulwama, who vide his order No. DCP/PA/22/784-88 dated 14-05-2022 in exercise of the powers vested to him under clause 21 of General Clause Act 1977 has rejected the instant representation abi-inito. Furthermore, the advisory board under the J&K PSA 1978 Jammu having Quorum comprising of (1) Justice (Retd.) Janak Raj Kotwal (Chairman), (2) Mr. Davinder Kumar Kapoor (Member), (3) Mr. Aijaz Ahmad Mir (Member) in their report dated 20-05-2022 while rejecting the representation of petitioner/detenue have observed and reported as under;- REPORT 20-05-2022 We have perused and accorded our consideration to the material placed before us. Aqib Ahmad Regoo S/O. Gh. Nabi Regoo R/O Khrew, Tehsil Pampore, District Pulwama (hereinafter referred to as the Detenu) has been detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by virtue of Order No. 22/DMP/PSA/22 dated 08.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, (hereinafter referred to as the Detaining Authority) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudiclal to the Security of the State. The order of Detention has been executed on 12.04.2022 and the Detenu is lodged in Central Jail, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The approval in terms of Section 8(4) of the Act has been accorded by the Government, Home Department, vide G. O. No. Home/PB-V/497 of 2022 dated 14.04.2022. Record reveals that information in terms of section 13(1) of the Act was duly given to the Detenue by the Detaining Authority vide his endorsement No. DMP/PSA/64-66 dated 08.04.2022 and the grounds of detention and other relevant material were furnished to him at the time of taking him into Detention on 12.04.2022 against receipt and their contents were read over and explained to him in English and Urdu/Kashmiri Languages. The Detenue was also informed about his right of making representation against his detention to the detaining Authority as also to the Government. The grounds of detention formulated by the Detaining Authority are sufficiently supported by the dossier/material placed before him by the Sr. Superintendent or Police, Awantipora which we have carefully perused. We nave accorded our consideration to the representation made on behalf of the detenue and given him personal hearing today through video conferencing. We, however, did not find any substance in the representation or the submissions made by him before us and, therefore, reject the same. The grounds of detention are well founded. All the requirements contemplated under the Act have been complied with and no error of law or procedure, which would invalidate the Detention, seems to have been committed by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention are well founded. All the requirements contemplated under the Act have been complied with and no error of law or procedure, which would invalidate the Detention, seems to have been committed by the Detaining Authority. The detention is thus, well founded and in conformity with the principles as enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act. We are, thus, of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the Detenu under Section 8 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Security of the State. The Reference is accordingly disposed of. Record of the case along with this report is sent back to the Government for necessary action at their end. The index of the file be maintained in the office and consigned to records. Aijaz Ahmad Mir Davinder Kumar Kapoor Janak Raj Kotwal Member Member (on leave) Chairman From the perusal of the detention record and opinion of advisory board it is clearly discernible that the representation filed by the petitioner through his brother namely Mohd Ashraf Regoo has been rejected by the District Magistrate on 14-05-2022 and by the advisory board on 20-05-2022. It is apt to reiterate here, that petitioner/detenue has been provided fullest opportunity to his representation which has been considered and rejected by the authorities under the Act. The arguments urged by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the representation of petitioner/detenue has not been considered and the same amounts to serious infraction of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India r/w Sec. 13 of J&K (PSA) vitiating the impugned detention order, are not legally tenable, discarded and out rightly rejected. 9. The 4th argument portrayed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is, that the grounds of detention are the ditto copy of dossier submitted by SP concerned, no subjective satisfaction has been derived by the detaining authority, there is non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority in passing the detention order which vitiates the impugned detention order. It is noteworthy to mention here, that on perusal of the grounds of detention and the dossier, I do not find that dossier submitted by SSP Awantipora is ditto copy of the grounds of detention passed by the detaining authority of respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama). It is noteworthy to mention here, that on perusal of the grounds of detention and the dossier, I do not find that dossier submitted by SSP Awantipora is ditto copy of the grounds of detention passed by the detaining authority of respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama). In the dossier the activities of petitioner/detenue have been specifically demonstrated which have been made basis for issuance of the grounds of detention and detention order. There is mention of the criminal activities of the detenue in the dossier and in the grounds of detention, but to say that the grounds of detention are ditto copy of the dossier is far-far from the reality. However, in the grounds of detention there is reference of the FIRs registered against the petitioner and his indulgence in criminal activities viz; subversive activities creating havoc for the maintenance of safety and security of the state and society and his remaining at large a serious threat to the UT of J&K. In (1981) 4 Supreme Court Cases 216 [STATE OF GUJARAT-Appellant Versus ADAM KASAM BHAYA-Respondent] relied by Ld. Dy. AG for the respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that the High Court cannot go further and examine whether material was adequate or not and the satisfaction mentioned in Sec.3 of the Act is satisfaction of detaining authority and not of the court. In (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 601 [UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-Appellant Versus ARVIND SHERGILL AND ANOTHER-Respondent] further relied by Ld. Dy. AG for the respondent, Hon'ble Supreme Court further held, that court can only examine whether grounds disclosed are relevant to the object of Preventive Detention Act. Ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied by Dy. AG for respondents make it manifestly clear that there must be subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority to pass order of detention. In the case in hand, the ratios of the judgments (Supra) squarely apply and it can be safely held, that the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order has arrived at subjective satisfaction and there is full application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention against petitioner/detenue. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority in passing order of detention are legally misplaced, repelled, discarded and out rightly rejected. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority in passing order of detention are legally misplaced, repelled, discarded and out rightly rejected. 10.Even otherwise it is settled law that this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution has limited scope to scrutinizing whether detention order has been passed on the material placed before it, it cannot go further and examine sufficiency of material. [Vide: State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya (1981) 4 SCC 216 ]. In the above background, it would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157 . The paragraph 5 of the judgement lays law on the point, which is advantageous to be reproduced infra: 5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that the Central Government or the State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (8) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community ......... it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. According to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with respect to the individual person that his activities are directed against one or other of the three objects mentioned in the section, and that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such a manner. The wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds. In the light of aforesaid position of law settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which subjective satisfaction is arrived at by detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, would not act as a .court of appeal' and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of material before detaining authority, another view was possible. Even in Abdul Latief Abdul Wahab Sheikh V. B.K. Jha, 1987 (2) SCC 22 the Supreme Court has categorically said that it is only procedural requirements, which are the only safeguards available to detenu, that is to be followed and complied with as the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority. In the present case, the procedural requirements have been followed and complied with by respondents in letter and spirit. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand, and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand, and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black- marketing activities, etcetera demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life. 11. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumra Goyal v. Union of India and others, (2005) 8 SCC 276 , and ingeminated by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, AIR 2019 SC 3428 , has held 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 antisocial and subversive elements from imperiling welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquillity 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. 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. To sum up, a law of preventive detention is not invalid because it prescribes no objective standard for ordering preventive detention, and leaves the matter to subjective satisfaction of the Executive. The reason for this view is that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive and is resorted to with a view to prevent a person from committing activities regarded as prejudicial to certain objects that the law of preventive detention seeks to prescribe. Preventive detention is, thus, based on suspicion or anticipation and not on proof. The reason for this view is that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive and is resorted to with a view to prevent a person from committing activities regarded as prejudicial to certain objects that the law of preventive detention seeks to prescribe. Preventive detention is, thus, based on suspicion or anticipation and not on proof. The responsibility for security of State, or maintenance of public order, or essential services and supplies, rests on the Executive and it must, therefore, have necessary powers to order preventive detention. Having said that, subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority to detain a person or not, is not open to objective assessment by a Court. A Court is not a proper forum to scrutinise the merits of administrative decision to detain a person. The Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority concerned and decide whether its satisfaction was reasonable or proper, or whether in the circumstances of the matter, the person concerned should have been detained or not. It is often said and held that the Courts do not even go into the question whether the facts mentioned in grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that is not the policy of law of preventive detention. This matter lies within the competence of Advisory Board. While saying so, this Court does not sit in appeal over decision of detaining authority and cannot substitute its own opinion over that of detaining authority when grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. 12. It is apposite to mention that our Constitution undoubtedly guarantees various freedoms and personal liberty to all persons in our Republic. However, it should be kept in mind by one and all that the constitutional guarantee of such freedoms and liberty is not meant to be abused and misused so as to endanger and threaten the very foundation of the pattern of our free society in which the guaranteed democratic freedom and personal liberty is designed to grow and flourish. The larger interests of our multi-religious nation as a whole and the cause of preserving and securing to every person the guaranteed freedom peremptorily demand reasonable restrictions on the prejudicial activities of individuals which undoubtedly jeopardise the rightful freedoms of the rest of the society. The larger interests of our multi-religious nation as a whole and the cause of preserving and securing to every person the guaranteed freedom peremptorily demand reasonable restrictions on the prejudicial activities of individuals which undoubtedly jeopardise the rightful freedoms of the rest of the society. Main object of Preventive Detention is the security of a State, maintenance of public order and of supplies and services essential to the community demand, effective safeguards in the larger interest of sustenance of peaceful democratic way of life. In the case in hand, as per the grounds of detention, petitioner/detenue is a hardcore Over Ground Worker (OGW) of banned terrorist Organization of Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) the aim and object of which is to secede the UT of Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India and to annex it with Pakistan, the said banned terrorist Organization for the said evil design has virtually engaged a war against the UT of J&K & Government established by the law and in the terror strikes hundreds of innocent subjects of the soil have lost their precious lives. Petitioner/detenue has been found involved in cases FIR No. 65/2021 U/SS 13 UAPA of P/S Khrew in which some posters of aforesaid banned terrorists Organization outfit have been recovered from his possession and in FIR No. 44/2021 u/ss 18/20/23/38/39 UAPA of P/S Pampore (Pulwama) which is suggestive of the fact that he is providing logistic support to the aforesaid terrorist organization in a clandestine manner and instigating youth of the area to join the terrorists ranks, actively involved in providing support to the shooters of the said outfit who have unleashed a spate of terror by killing persons with soft targets including street vendors, labourers from outside the Jammu & Kashmir working in orchards, small shops and commercial establishments and policemen who are off duty or unarmed, aim of killing is to create terror ecosystem in the UT of J&K, the activities of petitioner/detenue are highly prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the country, hence detained under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the petition sans any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed and disposed off. 14. Detention record be returned to the learned Dy. AG for the respondents.