ORDER

Z.A. Qureshi, J. - By this petition, the detention of one Sameer Ahmed Baba S/o Mohd. Shaft Baba R/o Kukarbazar, Srinagar is being challenged by his father Mohd. Shafi Baba.

2. The petitioner has been admitted to hearing as far back as on 14.12.1992 and notices were issued to respondents. In response to the notices, they appeared and filed the counter affidavit which is on the file.

3. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the detenue was arrested by the security forces and was subsequently detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act.

4. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the detenue is a local trained militant of Hizbul Mujahideen organization and has links with top militants of said organization. The detenue took three arms actions with the security forces with the intention to support the militants of said organization who are engaged in seeking the secessions of State from the Union of India for so-called liberation of valley. The grounds further reveal that in the year 1991, the detenue was motivated by one Abdul Rashid Mugloo, Chief Area Commander of said organization and was imparted training in handling of arms end lobbing of hand grenades in the hide-out place located in abdoned house of one Surjeet Singh in Lalchowk area. The grounds of detention further reveal that the detenue was booked in E.I.R. No: 14 of 1991 registered by police station C.I.K. Srinagar under section 3/4 TADA (P) Act etc. etc. and it was apprehended by the detaining authority that in case the detenue was released on bail in the above referred F.I.R, he shall prove a security hazard. Thus keeping in view the activities as spelt out in the grounds of detention, the detenue has been detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act.

5. The averments made by the petitioner while assailing the order of detention reveal that the grounds of detention are vague, and does not spell out the facts so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation as provided under Sub-Article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. The order of detention does not afford an opportunity to the detenue of making a representation against his detention to the Government, as because first thing which the detaining authority has to do after making the order of detention is to ensure and convey to the detenue that he has a right of making a representation about his detention order and he has to be apprised of that right of representation. It is also averred that the detenue has not been provided with the material or copies of F.I.R. on which detaining authority has relied for detaining the detenue under Public Safety Act.

6. The grounds of attack further reveal that the detenue has not been produced before the Advisory Board as is required under law as he has a right of audience not only by filing representation but even also appearing in person in case the detenue so desires before the statutory Advisory Board-who has to tender its opinion and justify existence of sufficient grounds for continued detention of the detenue. The averments further go that this has not been done by the respondent/State which has also violated the fundamental and constitutional rights ensured to the detenue under the Constitution and the statutory rights ensured to him under the statute on the subject. Above all, the detaining authority has not recorded its satisfaction as provided under law, making it very much clear that the detaining authority has passed the order after being duly satisfied on the facts which were placed before him and on the material brought to his notice that he is satisfied that the detenue is a security hazard for public order or for security of the State and has to be detained under the preventive detention and this subjective satisfaction is to be recorded by the detaining authority in unequivocal terms and un-ambiguous terms. The apprehensions expressed by the detaining authority are illusory and are not based on real appreciat