JUDGMENT : Mohan Lal, J 1. This intra-court appeal (LPA under clause 12 of Letters Patent) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 rendered by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in WP(Crl) No. 755/2022 titled Muntizir Ahmad Mir V. Union Territory of J&K & Ors., whereby, petition filed by the appellant for quashing his detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama) under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 has been dismissed. 2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2023, appellant has assailed it’s legality, propriety and correctness, and has sought it’s setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:- (i) that the Ld. Single Bench of this court has dismissed writ petition of appellant/detenue bearing No. WP (Crl) No. 755/2022 titled Muntizir Ahmad Mir V. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023 without any legal justification, without appreciating the grounds agitated in the writ petition and by incorrect appreciation of law, as the respondents in their counter affidavit have not specifically repelled the averments and grounds of challenge; (ii) that whole of the material that has been relied upon by the detaining authority while framing the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner, the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could have been made, the petitioner has not been informed about his right of making a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the government, the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered; (iii) that the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority while passing detention order was without any basis and also on non-existent grounds, the detention order is outcome of mala-fides and passed in colourable exercise of the powers, whereby, detenue’s right to make representation to the detaining authority has been denied, the allegations against the detenue being stale and having been no immediate proximity has not been considered by the Single Bench; (iv) that as per law the representation has not been considered at all, there is no mention of the date of rejection which is deliberate because the respondent Govt. as per law is under an obligation to consider and decide the representation without delay, the confirmation of detention order by the Advisory Board cannot be a ground to reject the representation of the detenue; 3. The writ court upon hearing both the sides and going through the detention record came to the conclusion that the detention of appellant/detenue in terms of impugned judgment/order dated 31.03.2023 was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of state and that all the procedural safeguards including providing of relevant material to appellant/detenue enabling him to make an effective representation have been adhered to. The writ court did not agree with the contentions of appellant/detenue that the impugned order of detention bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 was bad and legally unsustainable on the premises, that the whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority while framing grounds of detention have not been supplied to the petitioner/detenue, that the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could have been made by petitioner/detenue, that the petitioner/detenue has not been informed about his right of making representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government, and the representation of petitioner/detenue against impugned detention order has not been considered. 4. Sh. M. Ayoub Bhat Ld. Counsel for appellant/detenue has sought the setting aside/quashment of the impugned judgment and order passed by the writ court dated 31.03.2023 whereby the detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 has been upheld/confirmed, by vehemently canvassing arguments, that the whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority while framing grounds of detention have not been supplied to the appellant/detenue. It is argued, that the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could have been made by petitioner/detenue to the detaining authority as well as to the Government. It is moreso argued, that appellant/detenue has not been informed about his right of making representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Govt. which is serious infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and the same vitiates the detention order. It is vehemently argued, that the representation of the appellant/petitioner against impugned order of detention has not been considered. 5. which is serious infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and the same vitiates the detention order. It is vehemently argued, that the representation of the appellant/petitioner against impugned order of detention has not been considered. 5. Sh. Rais-Ud-Din Ganai, Dy. AG, has recapitulated the grounds urged in the grounds of detention/detention order and has strenuously argued, that all the safeguards have been adhered to and complied with by the detaining authority whereby the order of detention has been issued validly and legally. It is argued, that the detention order and grounds of detention alongwith material relied upon by the detaining authority have been handed over to appellant/detenue, the same has been read over and explained to him, the detenue was informed of his fundamental right to make representation to the Govt. as well as to the detaining authority against his detention, impugned detention order has been passed by the detaining authority after following the due procedure of law. Lastly, it has been argued, that the grounds urged by the appellant/detenue are factually incorrect and legally misconceived which requires the outright dismissal of the LPA. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The 1st argument urged by learned counsel for appellant/detenue is, that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority while framing grounds of detention have not been supplied to appellant/ detenue which vitiates the detention order. So far as the arguments in regard to non-supply of whole and essential material to appellant/detenue is concerned, it is apt to reiterate here, that the execution report dated 05.11.2022 being part of detention record executed by SI Ghulam Ahmad Belt No. 76/GBL, EXK-841970 of DPL Pulwama, bear the signature of appellant/detenue in English and depict that total 08 leaves consisting of contents of detention warrant, grounds of detention and other documents have been supplied/handed over to the appellant/detenue. The grounds of detention comprises 02 pages, order of detention and letter of detention comprises 01 page each whereas dossier of detention comprises of 03 pages. Impugned detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 is based upon the dossier submitted by SSP Pulwama vide his endorsement No. CS/Pros/PSA/DPO/22/200-03 dated 27.10.2022 addressed to the District Magistrate Pulwama. The grounds of detention comprises 02 pages, order of detention and letter of detention comprises 01 page each whereas dossier of detention comprises of 03 pages. Impugned detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 is based upon the dossier submitted by SSP Pulwama vide his endorsement No. CS/Pros/PSA/DPO/22/200-03 dated 27.10.2022 addressed to the District Magistrate Pulwama. It is noteworthy to mention here, that no other material has been relied by the detaining authority while issuing the impugned detention order. Since the dossier, grounds of detention and other documents have been furnished/supplied to appellant/detenue, as such it cannot lie in the mouth of Ld. Counsel for appellant/detenue to urge that whole of the material has not been supplied to the appellant. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for appellant/detenue, therefore, being legally unsustainable are repelled, rejected and discarded. 8. The 2nd argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for appellant/detenue is, that the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could be made by appellant/detenue to the detaining authority as well as to the Govt. against his detention order. Be it noted, that respondent No.2 has passed impugned detention order against appellant/detenue on the basis of grounds of detention which are delineated as under:- Subject:- Grounds of detention. Name : Muntazir Ahmad Mir Parentage : Bashir Ahmad Mir Age : 25 Years Residence : Parigam Tehsil : Pulwamna District : Pulwama Category : OGW (LeT) You Mr. Muntzair Ahmad Mir aged about 25 years are an ordinary resident of village Khalsa Parigam Pulwama. You are third among four siblings and you did your initial schooling from Govt. Primary School Parigam up to 5thclass. Thereafter you took admission in Govt. Middle School Larve up to 8thclass. After that you got admission in Govt. High School Parigam but failed to pass 10thclass examination which became the reason for you to leave the study halfway. As a result, you started to work as a Pashmina weaver/woodcutter. Presently you have been working as an electrician at Jamkash Automobiles Srinagar. You, being a member of banned terrorist organization (LeT), have invariably been aiding and abetting the terrorist activities carried in and around the Pulwama Town. You have been extending logistic support to active terrorists in harboring them at unknown locations which are mostly out of sight of the Security Forces/Police. You, being a member of banned terrorist organization (LeT), have invariably been aiding and abetting the terrorist activities carried in and around the Pulwama Town. You have been extending logistic support to active terrorists in harboring them at unknown locations which are mostly out of sight of the Security Forces/Police. You have been involving the youth as also the people of the area in vitiating the peaceful atmosphere thereby leaving scope for active terrorists to roam around for implementing their ill designed plans. You have been exploiting the religious sentiments of the youth thereby urging them to join militancy just to make their careers strong. You have a mental bent towards insurgency and you alongwith your other anti-national elements have been carrying out anti-national and anti-social activities continuously. You are a fundamentalist in nature and with the passage of time, you became a hard-core fundamentalist and sympathizer of terrorists and provided all logistical support to the terrorists and are working as Over Ground Worker (OGW) of banned terrorist organization (LeT). You are close associate of active terrorist namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar @ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Setherqund Pulwama who is District Commander of LeT as well as a top operative and active conduit of Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) outfit. You have been rendering assistance to the terrorists operating in area and trying to keep close liaison with the terrorists and help them in their nefarious designs. You have been informing the terrorists about the movement of Police/security forces thereby enabling their prolonged sustenance and keep the pot boiling. You established contact with terrorist handler namely @Ali Sajad on Teligram. In the month of August 2022 @ Ali Sajad provided many Telegram IDs of active terrorist namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar @ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Sethergund Pulwamna (District Commander LeT)to you and further directed you to receive a financial consignment near Shaheed Park Pulwama. On the directions of terrorist handler @ Ali Sajad, you received and then distributed the same money among the terrorist families and sympathizers so that more youth are motivated to work for the terrorists. You frequently met Reyaz Ahmad Dar @Khalid R/O Setherqund Pulwama and allowed him to use your phone to make calls across border and other to OGWs. On the directions of terrorist handler @ Ali Sajad, you received and then distributed the same money among the terrorist families and sympathizers so that more youth are motivated to work for the terrorists. You frequently met Reyaz Ahmad Dar @Khalid R/O Setherqund Pulwama and allowed him to use your phone to make calls across border and other to OGWs. Moreover, your association helped terrorist organization LeT toplan many terror attacks in the District and you have been currently providing the logisticSupport and leads to the terrorists of Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) outfit and you are still continuing with the activities prejudicial to the security of the State. You aided militants in making a detailed survey of the Pulwama area for carrying out terrorist acts upon security forces. You along with your associates, in a preplanned manner, used to mobilize the general public for unlawful activities and hatched a conspiracy to attack upon security forces deputed in the area. You were previously also apprehended in criminal cases but even after your release from the custody you showed no signs of reformation and continuously used to carry out illegal activities. Âs per reports you did not abstain from conducting meetings alongwith some of your associates in a clandestine manner and have been busy in instigating people to indulge in anti-national activities, so that peaceful atmosphere of the area gets vitiated. Presently you are at large and your remaining at large would pose a severe threat to the Security of the State as prevailing security scenario is presently fragile because few non-muslim killings have been witnessed in the recent past The activities as projected in the forgoing paras of the instant dossier run heavily against you and are highly prejudicial to the Security of the State. Being highly motivated to carry out the illegal designs you are not likely to desist from indulging in anti-social activities and the normal laws are not sufficient to deter you from indulging in such undesirable activities. Therefore, in order to prevent you from indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the Security of State, it is necessary to detain you by invoking the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Therefore, in order to prevent you from indulging in the activities, which are prejudicial to the Security of State, it is necessary to detain you by invoking the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Perusal of grounds of detention would demonstrate that appellant/detenue is an OGW of banned terrorist Organization LeT and is alleged to be a close associate of active terrorist namely Riaz Ahmad Dar @ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Sethergund Pulwama who happens to be the District Commander of LeT. It is also indicated in the grounds of detention that appellant established contact with terrorist handler Ali Sajad on Telegram in the month of August 2022 and on his directions he received and distributed money among the terrorist and their sympathizers. From the above, it is clear, that the grounds of detention depict specific allegations against appellant. The particulars of alleged terrorists with whom appellant has close association have been clearly spelt out in the grounds of detention. This being so, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the grounds of detention are vague. The arguments putforth by Ld. Counsel for appellant, therefore, legally unsustainable are rejected and discarded. 9. The 3rd argument propounded by learned counsel for appellant is, that the appellant has not been informed about his right of making representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Govt. which is a serious infraction of fundamental right guaranteed to the appellant under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and the same vitiates the detention order. It is pertinent to mention here, that in terms of detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022, respondent No.2 has detained appellant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of state under the provisions of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 whereby the appellant has been lodged in District Jail Kathua. Respondent No.2 in his communication No. DMP/PSA/360-62 dated 03.11.2022 (Notice of Detention) copies addressed to Addl. Chief Secretary to Government Home Department J&K Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu, SSP Pulwama and Superintendent District Jail Kathua has specifically mentioned that appellant has been informed about his right to make representation to him as also to the Government. The contention of Ld. Respondent No.2 in his communication No. DMP/PSA/360-62 dated 03.11.2022 (Notice of Detention) copies addressed to Addl. Chief Secretary to Government Home Department J&K Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu, SSP Pulwama and Superintendent District Jail Kathua has specifically mentioned that appellant has been informed about his right to make representation to him as also to the Government. The contention of Ld. Counsel for appellant, that the appellant has not been informed about his right to make representation against impugned detention order to the detaining authority as well as to the Government is belied, untenable, rejected and repelled. 10. The last & 4th argument canvassed by Ld. Counsel for appellant is, that the representation of the appellant against the impugned order of detention has not been considered, therefore, the detention order is vitiated. Perusal of detention record would demonstrate that the case of appellant was considered by the Advisory Board on 16.11.2022 wherein sufficient cause for detention of appellant has been found. Appellant has annexed a copy of representation dated 11.11.2022 alongwith his petition before the writ court, but the detention record shows that the date of the said representation is 21.11.2022 meaning thereby that the representation has been made on behalf of appellant after the Advisory Board had considered his case, and at the said relevant time, there was no representation made by the appellant before the Government. The representation of the appellant as per Advisory Board Order has been considered by the Government and rejected. Therefore, it cannot be said that representation of appellant has not been considered by the respondents. The arguments urged by Ld. Counsel for appellant, therefore, legally unsustainable are out rightly dismissed and rejected. 11. Although right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution, which has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution, yet the personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, the framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. It’s aim and object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 12. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of detenue acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198 , points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198 , points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something, which is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act, to prevent. 13. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 guarantee safeguard to detenue to be informed, as soon as may be, of grounds on which order of detention is made, which led to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and also to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation against order of detention. Detenue is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation, which on being considered, may obtain relief to him. Detention record, made available by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that detention order was made on proper application of mind to the facts of the case and detenue was detained at the time of execution of detention order, the material and grounds of detention and also informed that he had a right to represent against his preventive detention. Perusal of detention order depicts its execution. It further reveals that the copy of detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier etc. were received by the petitioner-detenue which were read over and explained to detenue in English, Urdu, Hindi and Kashmiri languages, which detenue understood fully in token of which the signatures of detenue had been obtained. It also divulges that detenue was informed that he can make representation to the government and detaining authority. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. It also divulges that detenue was informed that he can make representation to the government and detaining authority. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. Detaining Authority has narrated facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under Section 8 J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 14. Further, from in depth perusal of the grounds of detention, one cannot lose sight of the fact that appellant/detenue actively and covertly takes part in anti-national/anti social activities and has tried to spoil the peaceful atmosphere of Pulwama area, which made basis to book him under the Public Safety Act so as to prevent him from acting in a manner or engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. Further, the sponsoring authority has not only supplied the material, viz; dossier, containing gist of the activities of the detenue, but has also supplied the grounds of detention. All this material was before the detaining authority when it arrived at subjective satisfaction that activities of the detenue were prejudicial to maintenance of public order and requires preventive detention of detenue. Moreso, if in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The same views and principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in Goutam Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 230 . On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The same views and principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in Goutam Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 230 . In the present case, the appellant/detenue seems to be member of banned terrorist organization (LeT), has invariably been aiding and abetting the terrorist activities carried in and around the Pulwama Town, is close associate of active terrorist namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar @ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Setherqund Pulwama who is District Commander of LeT as well as a top operative and active conduit of Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) outfit, established contact with terrorist handler namely @ Ali Sajad on Telegram in the month of August 2022, provided many Telegram IDs of active terrorist namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar @ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Sethergund Pulwama (District Commander LeT) and further received financial consignment near Shaheed Park Pulwama and on the directions of terrorist handler @ Ali Sajad, received and then distributed the same money among the terrorist families and sympathizers so that more youth are motivated to work for the terrorists. 15. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21 by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. These observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another vs. Nabila and another (2015) 12 SCC 127 . 16. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the appeal sans any merit is disallowed, rejected and dismissed. These observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another vs. Nabila and another (2015) 12 SCC 127 . 16. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the appeal sans any merit is disallowed, rejected and dismissed. The impugned judgment/order of writ court dated 31.03.2023 confirming the detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022, is accordingly upheld. 17. Disposed of accordingly alongwith connected CMPs (if any). 18. Registry to return the detention record against proper receipt.