ORDER : 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has called in question order of detention no. 42/PSA of 2023 dated 02.05.2023 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the respondent 2 herein under and in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “the Act of 1978”). 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order on the following grounds:- A. Because the order of detention is unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law. The order of the detention has been passed in breach of the mandate of law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and by this Hon’ble Court. B. Because the detaining authority has not followed the Constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards. The detaining authority has not followed the procedural mandate as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. C. Because the District Magistrate detaining authority has not applied his mind as there is no compelling reasons and cogent material and details available before the detaining authority on the basis of which respondent No. 2 has made his subjective satisfaction and passed the detention order, without any valid reasons and facts as such there is complete non application of mind. D. That the detaining authority has also not applied his mind while passing the detention order as in the grounds of detention it is shown that detenue is involved in anti-national and anti-social state activities prejudicial to the security and peaceful atmosphere but has been detained for maintenance of Public Order which is contradictory as such the order being passed without application of mind is liable to be quashed. E. Because the grounds of detention are vague stale and no specific incident or dates or places are mentioned as such are vague and no subjective satisfaction could be achieved by the detaining authority on such grounds, there are no specific details and material about the involvement of the detenue in the activities alleged in the grounds and more importantly the events mentioned in the ground are without any material or details and is passed on the basis of apprehensions only as such there was no compelling reason to detain the detenue under preventive law since the ordinary law of the land has not been invoked ever against the detenue which may has shown that ordinary law was not sufficient to combat the activities of the detenue. On this ground also the impugned order and the grounds are liable to be quashed and set aside. F. Because in the impugned detention order the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has urged that detenue is linked with the terrorist outfit PAK based and same has compelled the detaining authority to detain the detenue under the preventive law in the interest of security of UT, however while passing the detention order the detaining authority has not shown any concrete material or link of the detenue with any terrorist organization or any act of terror and likewise the details of different SIM cards used by the detenue of the social media apps (Accounts/Posts) and to who detenue has extended threats in the locality as alleged in grounds of detention as such the detention order is just based on concocted story and apprehension as such the impugned detention order needs to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. G. Because the respondent has detained the petitioner on the basis of the concocted story with no material on record regarding the involvement of the petitioner in anti national and anti social activities as alleged by the respondent in the detention order, that right to liberty is most valuable right of the person and such right cannot be deprived on the basis of mere assumptions by the respondent state without having any proof on record as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Mohammad Yousaf Rather Vs. State of J&K AIR 1979, 1925. H. Because the detenue was studying MBBS Course at Pakistan from 2017-2019 and on his return to the UT and started living as a good citizen and was not involved in any anti social or anti state activity as also no FIR is registered against the detenue since there is no untoward incident reported in his name but has been falsely implicated by Ramban police as the has no such involvement of petitioner is recorded by concerned police but has been falsely implicated by Ramban police. On this count also the impugned order and grounds are liable to be quashed and set aside. On this count also the impugned order and grounds are liable to be quashed and set aside. I. Because the grounds of detention make mention of several alleged activities of the detenue which are prejudicial to the security of the state but has been detained for public order and even though no supporting documents regarding such alleged illegal activities of the detenue have been provided to the detenue to facilitate the detenue to make an effective representation against his detention. The detenue has two-fold and independent rights viz. Right to be furnished all the documents and subsequent right of representation against the order of the detention. Both the rights of the detenue have been violated and there is breach of the procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India. The detenue has been thus debarred from making an effective and purposeful representation to the detaining authority and Government against the order of detention. On this ground alone the order of detention deserves to be quashed. In the case of Syed Asiya Andrabi v. State and Ors, HCP 173/2017 decided on 30.08.2017, the detention order of petitioner was set aside by the Hon’ble Court for the fact that no specific material was on record to connect the petitioner to alleged activities. The relevant part of the judgment is noted below: “On the basis of the law laid down above, what can be said is that the grounds of detention are vague in almost all respects. These do not state as to where the activities, attributed to the detenue, took place. Each such accusation had to be explained by reference to the relevant material, which in turn had to be provided to the detenue so that a semblance of fairness could be attached to the order of detention. This has not been done. These do not state as to where the activities, attributed to the detenue, took place. Each such accusation had to be explained by reference to the relevant material, which in turn had to be provided to the detenue so that a semblance of fairness could be attached to the order of detention. This has not been done. This vagueness in the grounds of detention impinges on the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and it cannot stand.” J. Because the detenue is not involved in any Criminal activity and no FIR is registered against the petitioner regarding any anti national activities as such there was no compelling grounds for the res-2 for detaining the detenue and there is also no mention of any compelling reason for which the ordinary criminal law cannot take the action, shows complete non application of mind on behalf of the detaining authority. On this count also the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside as is also the law laid down in various judgments like 2003 (sup) JKJ HC 241 in case titled Javeed Ahmad Bhat vs. State against 2003(2) JKJ 743 HC/J&K in Mohammad Rafiq Rather Vs. State, 2005(2) JKJ HC 306/2005(3) JKJ HC 400 case titled Mohammad Hussain Vs. State 2005(1) SLJ page 251 para (5) Ghulam Nabi Shah Vs. State. K. Because the detenue is not supplied the other material as mentioned in the grounds of detention including the dossier, CID reports etc as mentioned in detention order and also report submitted by the sister agencies as mentioned in the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detaining authority has achieved the satisfaction as mentioned in the detention order etc and other record to show that what were the exact activities on the basis of which the detention order was passed and other material along with the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detaining authority has achieved the satisfaction as mentioned by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 2185 besides by the Hon’ble Court in Ghulam Rasool Vs. State 2005 (2) JKJ HC 400, AIR 1980 SC 1751 , AIR 1999 SC 3251 and 1999 in view of the same the detenue is deprived of his right to make the effective representation. State 2005 (2) JKJ HC 400, AIR 1980 SC 1751 , AIR 1999 SC 3251 and 1999 in view of the same the detenue is deprived of his right to make the effective representation. On this count also the impugned order and grounds are liable to be quashed and set aside because the detenue has not been furnished the material relied upon by the detaining authority. The impugned order has been admittedly passed by the detaining authority after perusing the dossier and other connected documents. However, the said material has not been furnished to the detenue. On this ground alone the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. Reference may be made to the case of Showkat Ahamd Bhat vs. UT of J&K and Ors WP(Crl) 143/2020 decided on 01.03.2021 where this Court held thus “On the touch stone of the above settled position of law and perusal of record, the detenu was not supplied the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. The detenue was provided material in the shape of grounds of detention with no other material/documents as referred in the order of detention. On these counts alone, in view of the above settled position of law, the detention of the detenue is vitiated, the detenue having been prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention by not providing the sufficient material.” L. That the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate is without application of mind as the order is the replica of the dossier sent by Superintendent of Police when detention order is passed there is no material change in the rest of the dossier except removing some connecting lines and deleting some of the lines and the respondent 2 has not applied his mind as it is said that order is passed on the basis of grounds supplied which means that the grounds are prepared by the SSP himself and not by the District Magistrate in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order is illegal and without application of mind and is clearly covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court as such is liable to be quashed and set aside. M. That the father of the detenue has made representation to the Respondent No. 1 on 15.05.2023 by registered post for release of the detenue on humanitarian and medical grounds as the detenue is suffering from acute health problems diagnosed case of ALL-L2 (Acute Lymphoblastic leukemia/Bloc Cancer) since last 9 years and is advised by the Doctors of continuous medication but the representation submitted by the father of the detenue to the Home Department on 15.05.2023 (received by post on 17.05.2023) has not been considered as provided under law as such the impugned detention order needs to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. N. That the detenue is suffering from life consuming disease of Blood Cancer and is diagnosed case of ALL-L2 (Acute lymphoblastic leukemia) as certified by the SKIMS Soura since last 9 years and is advised by the doctors of continuous medication and the continuous detention of the detenue will be detrimental to the health of the detenue as such the detention order of the detenue needs to be reviewed by this Hon’ble Court on humanitarian grounds. O. That the detenue was not informed as to whom he has to make representation in view of the law laid down 1995 Crimes (4) SC 767 and no such authority specified which again renders the order liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Counter affidavit/reply stands filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed and its dismissal is sought on the grounds urged therein. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submission in line with the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petition would press ground (L) and ground (N) supra urged in the petition respectively contending that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on these two grounds alone whereas, on the contrary the counsel for the respondents would contend that the impugned order of detention has been passed validly and legally in tune with the provisions of the Act of 1978 and after following and adhering to the constitutional guarantees available to the detenue-petitioner and, as such, the answering respondents did not violate any legal or fundamental rights of the detenue and have in fact followed the provisions of the Act of 1978 as also the mandate of constitutional guarantees enshrined in the Constitution of India. 5. 5. Insofar as ground “L” (supra) is concerned, it transpires from the perusal of the record available in the petition that the grounds of detention claimed to have been drawn and framed by the respondent 2 – detaining authority are replica of the copy of the dossier drawn and prepared by the sponsoring agency i.e. the Senior Superintendant of Police, Ramban, thus, suggesting that the detaining authority – respondent 2 has failed to apply its independent mind and draw a subjective satisfaction while detaining the petitioner-detenue. Law is no more res integra in this behalf and stands settled by series of judgments passed by this Court including the one passed in case titled as “Naba Lone Vs. District Magistrate” reported in 1988 SLG 300 wherein following has been observed:- “The grounds of detention supplied to the detenue is a copy of the police dossier, which was placed before the District Magistrate for his subjective satisfaction in order to detain the detenue. This shows total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. He has dittoed the Police direction without applying his mind to the facts of the case.” The impugned order of detention, thus, is not sustainable on this count. 6. Insofar as the ground “N” (supra) is concerned, it also transpires from the perusal of the reply filed by the respondents to the petition that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner-detenue has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their reply suggesting that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandate of law in this regard. The Apex Court in case titled as “Rahmatullah Vs. State of Bihar and Ors” reported in 1979 (4) SCC 559 in this behalf has observed and laid down following:- “4. The normal rule of law is that when a person commits an offence or a number of offences, he should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the normal appropriate criminal law; but if he is sought to be detained under any of the preventive detention laws as may often be necessary to prevent further commission of such offences, then the provisions of Article 22(5) must be complied with. Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 reads: When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. This Sub-Article provides, inter alia, that the detaining authority shall as soon as may communicate the grounds of detention and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The opportunity of making a representation is not for nothing. The representation, if any, submitted by the detenue is meant for consideration by the Appropriate Authority without any unreasonable delay, as it involves the liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The non-consideration or an unreasonably belated consideration of the representation tantamount to noncompliance of Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution.” Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra, the impugned detention order on this score as well is not legally sustainable. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition succeeds and, is accordingly, allowed, as a consequence whereof the order of detention order no. 42/PSA of 2023 dated 02.05.2023 passed by the respondent 2 herein is quashed with a direction to the respondents including the Jail Authority concerned to release the detenue-petitioner from preventive custody unless required in any other case. Disposed of, accordingly.