JUDGMENT : 01. The detenu has challenged Order of Detention No. PSA 20 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Samba, vide which the detenu was placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention has been assailed by the detenu through his mother-Sapna. 02. The impugned order of detention has been assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; the Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention without any application of mind. There were no sufficient grounds recorded by the Detaining Authority to justify that the alleged activities of the detenu were threat to public order. The Detaining Authority has not provided all the relevant material relied upon while passing the order of detention to the detenu. This has resulted in violation of all procedural safeguards provided to the detenu rendering the order of detention unsustainable. 03. Counter affidavit has been filed and detention record has also been produced. 04. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the detenu has been detained on the basis of police dossier submitted by the SSP Samba dated 29.07.2024. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba requested the detention of the detenu as he was involved in activities, which were a threat to public order and were prejudicial to the safety of the public in general and maintenance of public order. All the relevant material relied upon by the Detaining Authority have been provided to the detenu and grounds of detention have also been read over and explained to the detenu in the language which he understood. The detenu has also been informed of his right to make a representation. The Detaining Authority has complied with all the statutory requirements and fulfilled the constitutional guarantees. The impugned order of detention has been issued after carefully examining all the material and arriving at a subjective satisfaction, thus, the detention is necessary for maintenance of public order. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. 06. Learned counsel for the detenu at the very outset has submitted that the detenu was already in custody when the detention order was passed. The respondents have failed to provide cogent and compelling reasons justifying his detention. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. 06. Learned counsel for the detenu at the very outset has submitted that the detenu was already in custody when the detention order was passed. The respondents have failed to provide cogent and compelling reasons justifying his detention. When the detention order was passed, the detenu was in custody from 22.07.2024 to 20.08.2024 and this fact has not been controverted by the respondents. The respondents have passed the order of detention without noticing this fact that he was already in custody nor they have explained the compelling circumstances for placing him in detention. The Detaining Authority without arriving at its subjective satisfaction has passed the order of detention. The order of detention or the grounds formulated do not given any compelling reasons necessitating preventive detention of the detenu who was already in custody for alleged commission of offences. 07. The grounds of detention indicate that the detenu was arrested in FIR No. 73/2024 on 22.07.2024. It is well settled that the preventive detention of a person in custody should ordinarily not be ordered. The Detaining Authority, however, can pass the order of detention provided there are compelling reasons for the same or there is immediate possibility of his being released. 08. It is well settled that preventive detention order can be passed, if a person under the police/judicial custody is involved in criminal cases but for doing so, the compelling reasons are to be recorded as to why the detenu cannot be prevented from indulging in these activities. In the absence of these reasons, the order of detention becomes unsustainable under law. It is quite relevant to quote Para-5 of the judgment rendered in Surya Prakash Sharma vs. State of U.P., 1994 SCC (Cr.) 1691 , by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “..........The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue was already in detention and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that, (a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future and that it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities." The detaining authority has to disclose the compelling reasons if the reasons are not disclosed the impugned order suffers for non- application of mind. Grounds of detention indicate the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu was in custody of the respondents at the time of directing his preventive detention. The detaining authority has not brought on record any cogent material that ordinary law of land is not sufficient to deter the detenue from such activities. Such subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot, therefore, be said to be proper and justified..." The case of the detenue is fully covered by the judgment supra). Respondents have not shown any material to make out that the ordinary law is not enough to prevent the detenu despite the fact that the detenue was already taken into custody for alleged commission of offence under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities Act. The subjective satisfaction arrived at, under such circumstances cannot be said to be proper and justified. The detention order, therefore, deserved to be quashed.” 09. The Detaining Authority having failed to give any compelling reason while passing the order of detention, as such, the same has become vitiated. 10. It is next argued that the detenu has made a representation before the detaining authority but the same has not been considered till date. Learned counsel for the respondents has emphasized that the representation of the petitioner has been considered. Perusal of the record reveals that though representation is on record and the same has not been considered by the Government resulting in infraction of valuable right. Article-22(5) of the constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance to an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority shall communicate the same at the earliest to enable him to make an effective representation against the same. Article-22(5) of the constitution of India provides that when any person is detained in pursuance to an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority shall communicate the same at the earliest to enable him to make an effective representation against the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the representation submitted by the petitioner must be considered and disposed of at the earliest. In “ Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others”, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 1019 , it has held as under: “22……….….Article 22(5) reflects a keen awareness of the framers of the Constitution that preventive detention leads to the detention of a person without trial and hence, it incorporates procedural safeguards which mandate immediacy in terms of time. The significance of Article 22 is that the representation which has been submitted by the petitioner must be disposed of at an early date. The communication of the grounds of detention, as soon as may be, and the affording of the earliest opportunity to submit a representation against the order of detention will have no constitutional significance unless the detaining authority deals with the representation and communicates its decision with expedition.”.” 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and without adverting to the other grounds raised in this petition, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, detention order No. PSA 20 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Samba, is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released from custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. 12. Detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents by the Registry forthwith.