ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ, pleadings and the record therewith. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, Arif Aijaz Shahri, acting through his wife, Mst. Ifra Hakeem invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the preventive detention arrest of the petitioner under Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, which has resulted in the arrest and custody of the petitioner in the District Jail, Kupwara. The petitioner is, thus, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for earning release of his person from the confinement and restoration of his personal liberty as being a fundamental right granted to him under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner came to be under scanner of the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora, who vide a letter No. Lgl/PSA-27/2023/28741-47 dated 10.08.2023 forwarded a dossier against the petitioner purportedly containing the alleged material, on the basis of which, the activities of the petitioner were reckoned to be prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, the personal liberty of the petitioner was intended to be curtailed and this letter was addressed to the District Magistrate, Bandipora, who is respondent No. 2 herein. 4. Acting upon the said dossier against the said petitioner, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora came to have a subjective satisfaction that a case was made out for preventive detention of the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore by virtue of an order No. 17/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 23.08.2023, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora came to direct the preventive detention of the petitioner under section 8(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The petitioner was ordered to be arrested, detained and lodged in custody in the District Jail, Kupwara. The petitionjer came to be detained on 24.08.2023. 5. For the purpose of passing the aforesaid detention order, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora came to formulate grounds of detention purportedly drawn from the dossier as served against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora. 6. In the grounds of detention, the petitioner is introduced to be a shopkeeper at Khadi Market, Bandipora. 5. For the purpose of passing the aforesaid detention order, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora came to formulate grounds of detention purportedly drawn from the dossier as served against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora. 6. In the grounds of detention, the petitioner is introduced to be a shopkeeper at Khadi Market, Bandipora. The petitioner’s father is said to be a Pakistani trained terrorist, who got killed in the year 1991 by the Security Forces. The petitioner is referred to be a staunch follower and terrorist associate of Lashkar-e-Toiba (in short “LeT”) outfit involved in motivating and instigating the youth of Bandipora and Aragam and its adjoining areas for anti-national activities. 7. The petitioner is referred to be an over ground worker of said terrorist organization to whom the petitioner is alleged to have delivered his services in association with other partners to succeed various modules plotted out by the terrorist organizations. The petitioner is said to be of a fundamentalist ideology and with the passage of time becoming a hardcore fundamentalist working on the direction of LeT Chief Lala Umer and also having closed association with LeT terrorist, namely, Hashir Rafiq Parray and Mohammad Jameel Shergojril. The petitioner is also alleged to have been a close aide of foreign terrorist, namely, Haider who was eliminated at Kulgam in an anti-terrorist operation. 8. The petitioner is alleged to have been the guide to the terrorist who indulged in killing of police personal at Main Market at Nishat Park, Bandipora. The petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 12 of 2013 registered by the Police Station, Aragam for alleged commission of offences under section 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and FIR No. 67 of 2022 by Police Station, Banidpora for alleged commission of offences under section 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and section 4B of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 has been referred. 9. With the background as profiled in the grounds of detention, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora is said to have drawn a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a serious risk to be let free enjoying his personal liberty. 10. In the writ petition, averments have been made with respect to state of facts attending FIR No. 12 of 2013 and FIR No. 67 of 2022 related to the implication of the petitioner therein. 10. In the writ petition, averments have been made with respect to state of facts attending FIR No. 12 of 2013 and FIR No. 67 of 2022 related to the implication of the petitioner therein. FIR No. 12 of 2013 of Police Station Aragam insofar as it relates to the petitioner is too stale a reference point to be one of the components/constituents of making of a case for preventive detention of the petitioner. Now, insofar as FIR No. 67 of 2022 of the Police Station Bandipora is concerned, the petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that he came to be discharged in the said case by an order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora and that despite the discharge of the petitioner from the said criminal case presented on the basis of FIR No. 67 of 2022, the petitioner was not released by the authorities as he came to be booked under section 107 read with section 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and kept detained in a Subsidiary Jail, Bandipora till the time the order for preventive detention of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora came into picture to continue to keep the petitioner in a state of imprisonment. 11. The petitioner in his writ petition has alleged procedural breaches and deviations at the end of the respondents in carrying out and maintaining the preventive detention of the petitioner on the basis of the impugned preventive detention order passed by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora. In this regard, the petitioner has pleaded that the dossier against the petitioner prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora was forwarded vide a letter dated 10.08.2023 to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora but a copy of the said letter was never provided to the petitioner for the sake of enabling him to make an effective representation. The petitioner has alleged that he was not provided the material record attending the dossier by the Detention Warrant Executive Officer. The petitioner has specifically and categorically denied his role in any anti-national activities or any contacts with anti-India Organizations. The petitioner has denied himself to be an OGW of any Organization working against India. The petitioner has alleged that he was not provided the material record attending the dossier by the Detention Warrant Executive Officer. The petitioner has specifically and categorically denied his role in any anti-national activities or any contacts with anti-India Organizations. The petitioner has denied himself to be an OGW of any Organization working against India. The petitioner has pleaded to be married person having two minor kids doing his business of readymade in his own shop before getting detained rendering his family deprived of livelihood. The petitioner’s grievance is that his representation has not been considered by the authority concerned despite having duly received the representation. 12. The respondents, on the other hand, in their counter affidavit to the writ petition, acting and speaking through respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora have asserted that the preventive detention of the petitioner is justified suffering from no procedural deficiency or defect and that the petitioner is a serious threat to the security of the State and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora was well justified in ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner by virtue of the impugned order acting upon the dossier submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora. It is pleaded in the counter reply that the impugned preventive detention order against the petitioner was approved by the Govt. of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of Govt. Order no. Home/PB-V/1932 dated 28.08.2023. It is pleaded in the writ petition that pursuant to the Advisory Board’s opinion holding the preventive detention order of the petitioner to be justified, the confirmation of the impugned preventive detention order against the petitioner came to be granted by the Govt. of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of Govt. Order no. Home/PB-V/2320 dated 06.10.2023. 13. When this Court examines the case in totality of facts and circumstances stated and submitted, this Court cannot avoid getting confronted with facts which make the preventive detention of the petitioner illegal and unsustainable. First of the said fact and circumstance is that neither the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora nor the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora ever exhibited any sense of awareness to the fact that the petitioner stood discharged as an accused from the case which was presented before the criminal court on the basis of investigation in FIR No. 67/2022. First of the said fact and circumstance is that neither the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora nor the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora ever exhibited any sense of awareness to the fact that the petitioner stood discharged as an accused from the case which was presented before the criminal court on the basis of investigation in FIR No. 67/2022. The petitioner in the said criminal case figured as accused No. 7 and was discharged meaning thereby given a clean-chit. Second fact and circumstance vitiating the preventive detention of the petitioner is that the subjective satisfaction of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora proceeded upon stale ground/fact which is petitioner’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 12/2013. Obviously, FIR No. 12/2013 and FIR No. 67/2022 came to be mentioned by the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora and the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora in order to portray that the petitioner as a person with a negative profile as set out in the dossier as well as in the grounds of detention because in the absence of reference of said two FIRs it would have been difficult for the Superintendent of Police, Bandipora as well as for the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora to lay a basis for the preventive detention of the petitioner as adverse recitals projecting the petitioner in a bad light could not have been a sufficient basis for preventive detention of the petitioner unless and until there was an underlying supporting material served by the sponsoring authority and considered by the detention order making authority and the said material being disclosed to the petitioner for the purpose of enabling him to make an effective representation. In the present case, the two FIRs are highlighted and rest of the recitals in the grounds of detention are opinion oriented and in the realm of assumptions. 14. The impugned order on the technical side is also illegal in the sense that the preventive detention of the petitioner has been ordered by reference to his alleged activities being prejudicial to the security of the State as being one of the purported grounds under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, whereas the fact is that there is no such ground available section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 that the District Magistrate or for that matter even the Govt. of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir can subject a person to preventive detention holding his/her activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 in its original composition and creation was meant for the State of Jammu and Kashmir which after J&K Reorganization Act of 2019 came to be converted into Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and, therefore, by virtue of an amendment in section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, the security of the State came to be deleted and replaced by security of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to be a ground for ordering preventive detention of a person provided his/her activities are prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. 15. In the present case for the reasons best known to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora, it is the security of the State which left the authorities concerned bothered whereas the security of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vis-à-vis the alleged activities of the petitioner was not in the comprehension of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora. Therefore, the preventive detention of the petitioner otherwise is not legally sustainable. Letters of law in the case of the preventive detention statue are meant to be religiously followed and not to be left to the flight of imagination and comprehension on the part of the authorities working under the aegis of preventive detention law which in present case Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 16. Cumulative effect of aforesaid vitiating factors render the preventive detention of the petitioner as illegal and, therefore, warrant it to be set-aside. Accordingly, this Court quashes the preventive detention order No. 17/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 23.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora read with consequent approval and confirmation order passed by the Govt. of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith from the preventive detention of the custody and be said free to his personal liberty. 17. The Superintendent of the Jail concerned as well as the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Bandipora to ensure the release of the petitioner forthwith.