JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ pleadings and the record therewith and also perused the detention record pertaining to the petitioner. 2. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his preventive detention custody which came to take place by virtue of an Order No. 12 of 2023 dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Jammu, acting under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, and resulted in detainment of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner came forward with the present writ petition instituted on 31.08.2023 terming his preventive detention as illegal and is, therefore, seeking it to be declared as such and consequently to earn restoration of his personal liberty. 4. A case for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 was processed and put up by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu when he, by a letter No. CRB/Dossier/2023/24/DPO dated 22.07.2023, submitted a dossier comprising of 164 leaves to the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu thereby presenting the material which, in the estimate of the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu, made a good enough basis for seeking the preventive detention of the petitioner in order to prevent his activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 5. In the dossier, the petitioner came to be introduced and referred as a hard core criminal, desperate character, a habitual indulgent in acts of violence such as attempt to murder, extortion, stabbing, rioting, snatching, possessing illegal arms, burglary etc and also engaged in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the distribution thereof by operating through his network. 6. The petitioner came to be referred as a chronic criminal of the area having created a fear of insecurity amongst the inhabitants of the area. In this regard, the petitioner’s repeated involvement in criminal cases resulting in registration of FIRs was disclosed which are reproduced hereunder : (i) FIR No. 110/2014 u/s 341/323 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (ii) FIR No. 115/2014 u/s 451/307/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (iii) FIR No. 157/2014 u/s 341/323/34/324/307 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (iv) FIR No. 223/2016 u/s 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act and 3/25/4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (ii) FIR No. 115/2014 u/s 451/307/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (iii) FIR No. 157/2014 u/s 341/323/34/324/307 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (iv) FIR No. 223/2016 u/s 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act and 3/25/4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (v) FIR No. 89/2018 u/s 341/323 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. (vi) FIR No. 89/2022 u/s 307/326/120-13/201 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Poonch. (vii) FIR No. 79/2022 u/s 436/452/380/147/427 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Gangyal. (viii) FIR No. 129/2023 u/s 307/341/147 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act of Police Station, Satwari. 7. By reference to the last FIR No. 129/2023 registered against the petitioner for alleged commission of offences under Sections 307/341/147 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 with the Police Station, Satwari, the petitioner was mentioned to be in a state of arrest and his release on bail was anticipated to be the precipitating point for the district police to seek the preventive detention of the petitioner lest the petitioner ventures for next crime commission. 8. Acting upon the said material so served through the medium of the dossier, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came to formulate the grounds of detention and drew a subjective satisfaction therefrom to hold that the petitioner’s personal liberty was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, warranted his preventive detention under Section 8(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 and thus, ordered his arrest and detention to be lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. 9. In the grounds of detention, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came to refer all the FIRs cited against the petitioner in the dossier to come out with commonality that in all the FIRs, the petitioner has been booked, besides for offences under Indian Penal Code, for offences under the Arms Act of 1959 meaning thereby the petitioner was allegedly in repeat indulgences with illegal possession of arms co-relating with the commission of offences under Ranbir Penal Code/Indian Penal Code. 10. After having passed the preventive detention order against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came to apprise the Home Department, Govt. 10. After having passed the preventive detention order against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came to apprise the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir about the fact of passing of the detention order against the petitioner by addressing a communication No. DMJ/J/23-24/352 dated 25.07.2023 and also to apprise the petitioner about the fact of detention order having passed against him by addressing a letter No. DMJ/J/23-24/353-356 dated 25.07.2023 thereby apprising him of his right to make a representation to the Government against the order of detention and also to the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu against his said detention being so ordered by him i.e., the District Magistrate, Jammu. 11. The execution of the preventive detention warrant upon the petitioner came to be carried out on 27.07.2023 itself given the fact that the petitioner was already in a state of arrest on account of his implication in FIR No. 129/2023 of the Police Station, Satwari. 12. The petitioner, upon his detention, was handed over entire compilation of the detention related and attending order comprised of 171 leaves delivered by PSI Dhanraj Singh PID No. 196671 of the Police Station, Satwari, Jammu. The petitioner is said to have been explained the detention order and the record therewith in Hindi/Dogri languages fully understood by him and also came to be apprised about his right to make a representation to the Government as well as the preventive detention order passing authority. 13. The preventive detention Order No. 12 of 2023 dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came to be approved by the Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir vide its Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1724 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 in terms of requirement of Section 8(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 and referred the matter to the opinion of the Advisory Board. 14. The opinion report dated 22.08.2023 on file No. Home/PB-V/406 of 2023 came to be tendered by the Advisory Board holding thereby that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 15. 14. The opinion report dated 22.08.2023 on file No. Home/PB-V/406 of 2023 came to be tendered by the Advisory Board holding thereby that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 15. At the time of submission of the case before the Advisory Board, no representation is said to have been received from the petitioner’s end against his preventive detention and that is the reason with respect to recital in the opinion report of the Advisory Board that no representation was found with the case submitted for its opinion with respect to preventive detention of the petitioner. 16. Acting upon the opinion so received from the Advisory Board, the Government of UT of Jammu and Kashmir vide its Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1907 of 2023 dated 25.08.2023 came to confirm the preventive detention of the petitioner and fixing the preventive detention period to be for a period of three months at the first instance and place of lodgement in the Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. 17. The petitioner came to make a representation to the Government acting through his mother-Satwant Kour and the representation dated 31.08.2023 was duly received at the end of the Home Department of the Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir. In the representation, the petitioner came to assail his preventive detention terming as unwarranted and misconceived being unrelated to maintenance of public order and there being no compelling reasons for ordering his preventive detention when he was already in arrest custody in connection with FIR No. 129 of 2023 dated 29.06.2023. The representation so submitted by the petitioner came to be put to process at the end of the Home Department of the Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir but its final fate is not revealed be it on the file of the detention record nor on the file of the present petition. 18. The representation so submitted by the petitioner came to be put to process at the end of the Home Department of the Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir but its final fate is not revealed be it on the file of the detention record nor on the file of the present petition. 18. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner has come assailing his preventive detention alleging that just by the series of FIRs and the criminal cases emanating therefrom standing against the petitioner could not have been a basis, be it factual or legal for the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu to invoke Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 against the petitioner holding his activities allegedly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order whereas the petitioner’s implication in the cases relatable to the aforesaid FIRs, at the most, is in the arena of maintenance of law and order and not relatable to the maintenance of public order. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the aspect that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with his alleged involvement in FIR No. 129/2023 dated 29.06.2023 registered by the Police Station Satwari and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu to frame dossier against the petitioner for seeking his preventive detention and correspondingly there was no occasion for the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu to grant the preventive detention against the petitioner and as such the action on the part of the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as on the part of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu was misconceived amounting to abuse of process of law under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further assailed the preventive detention of the petitioner on the ground that the entire set of material cited by the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu and relied upon by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu subjecting the petitioner to preventive detention was never supplied to the petitioner thereby disabling him to make an effective representation against his preventive detention. 21. 21. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu in his counter affidavit to the writ petition has controverted each and every ground of challenge to the preventive detention of the petitioner by over-emphasizing the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender of law who thereby poses a threat to the maintenance of public order besides to the maintenance of law and order. 22. After hearing both the sides and perusing the writ pleadings, record therewith and also the detention record, this Court is led to pose a question to the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as to the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu that prior to his arrest in connection with FIR No. 129/2023 registered with Police Station Satwari in the course of which arrest the petitioner came to be subjected to preventive detention custody, if the petitioner had earned bail in all the antecedent FIRs and criminal cases emanating therefrom and still kept on abusing his bail liberty by repeat indulgence in next criminal act leading to the registration of the next FIR and presentation of a criminal case against him then why the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu did not feel bothered to approach the concerned criminal courts of law for seeking revocation of the bail so granted to the petitioner in the face of purported abuse of the bail liberty extended in favour of the petitioner by the concerned court. If that would have been done at the end of the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu by following the procedure of and options under ordinary law perhaps the petitioner would have not got the opportunity of indulging in alleged criminal acts of omission and commission falling in succession. However, it seems that the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu instead chose to act as a punitive authority by inflicting pre-conviction custody on the petitioner by abandoning ultimate option of seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner granted in all the cases so pending against him. 23. However, it seems that the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu instead chose to act as a punitive authority by inflicting pre-conviction custody on the petitioner by abandoning ultimate option of seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner granted in all the cases so pending against him. 23. Thus, the mindset with which the respondent No. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu as well as the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu came forward to exercise the jurisdiction under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is misplaced one. In fact, the petitioner’s preventive detention which is meant to last for one year upon its expiry would be serving no deterrent but an opportunity in waiting for the petitioner to come out of one year of preventive detention slapped by the present detention order and then re-lapse into his alleged proclivity of indulging in commission of offences whereas in the event of the prosecution seeking revocation of the bail so granted to the petitioner and eventually able to seek the revocation of bail against him would result in the petitioner suffering effects of his own wrong doings and acting in breach of the terms and conditions of bail granted and self-inviting custody. 24. This Court has come across with number of cases of similar nature where in order to deal with the maintenance of law and order scenario related with a person, who is found to be allegedly involved in repeat criminal cases to be booked consequently, is visited by preventive detention order under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 which invariably results in quashment of the preventive detention leaving the person free whereas the law and order enforcement agencies as well as the district magistrate avoid/escape going for seeking revocation/recall of the bail granted in favour of such a person from the criminal court of law which is perhaps a readily available option/remedy to be invoked to deal with a person of such an incorrigible tendencies of indulgences in commission of crimes. 25. 25. A preventive detention seeking and granting authorities are required to bear in mind that whenever in connection with the cases of preventive detention relatable to maintenance of public order is to be dealt with, then the distinction obtaining between a case of law and order and that of maintenance of public order is to be kept in mind in which regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in series of its judgments has come to dwell upon. In this regard, this Court refers to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “K.K. Saravana Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr,” reported in 2008(9) SCC 89 . Para 28 of the said judgment needs to be reproduced for the sake of reference: 28. In Commissioner of Police & Others v. C. Anita (Smt.) (2004) 7 SCC 467 , this court again examined the issue of "public order" and "law and order" and observed thus: "7. ....The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts." 26. Notwithstanding aforesaid, another facet which vitiates the present preventive detention of the petitioner is the default on the part of the respondent No. 1 in responding to the representation of the petitioner made against his preventive detention. Fact is that the respondent No. 1 is acknowledged to have received the representation dated 31.08.2023 of the petitioner against his preventive detention and which came to be processed for consideration but the outcome of the said representation is not known to anyone in so much as not even to the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir as there is nothing obtaining on the detention record of the petitioner as to how the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir came to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner meaning thereby the right to represent against his detention exercised by the petitioner was subjected to waste by the Home Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu and Kashmir and that renders the preventive detention vitiated with illegality warranting its quashment. 27. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention Order No. 12 of 2023 dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu read with consequent Govt. orders approving and confirming preventive detention of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The Superintendent Jail concerned is directed to restore the petitioner to his personal liberty in case the petitioner is not required under any other legal custody in connection with any criminal case so pending against him, be it under investigation or under trial. 28. orders approving and confirming preventive detention of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The Superintendent Jail concerned is directed to restore the petitioner to his personal liberty in case the petitioner is not required under any other legal custody in connection with any criminal case so pending against him, be it under investigation or under trial. 28. The quashment of the preventive detention of the petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, will not prejudice the prosecution in approaching the concerned criminal court/s for seeking recall/revocation of the bail granted in favour of the petitioner in the criminal cases in which the petitioner is under trial and the concerned criminal courts shall be at liberty to deal with the matter on merits of the situation in case the cancellation of bail of the petitioner is sought by the prosecution. 29. Disposed of accordingly.