IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Syed Bashir-ud-Din, J.
Alam Bhat - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
HCP No. 96/2002
Decided On : 24 May, 2003
Habeas Corpus - Detention under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 - Section 8 - Summary of Acts and Sections: J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Section 8 - The court discussed the grounds of detention, communication of the order and grounds to the detenue, and the failure to consider the detenue's representation. The court referenced legal provisions from V.C. Mohan v. Union of India, Chotka Hembran v. State of West Bengal, Kshetra Gogoi v. State of Assam, Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra, Naser Ahmad Sheikh v. Addl. Chief Secretary Home, and K.D. Sheikh v. District Magistrate Ahmadabad to emphasize the requirement of fresh facts for subsequent detention orders, communication of grounds of detention, and timely disposal of representations.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The court discussed the repetition of grounds for detention, non-communication of the order and grounds to the detenue, and the failure to consider the detenue's representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second detention order was based on the same grounds as the first order, violating the requirement for fresh facts for subsequent detention orders. The detenue was not provided with the order and grounds, and his representation was not considered, violating his constitutional rights.
Issues: Repetition of grounds for detention, non-communication of the order and grounds to the detenue, failure to consider the detenue's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fresh facts for subsequent detention orders, the communication of grounds of detention, and the timely disposal of representations, citing relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned second detention order and directed the release of the detenue from preventive custody, emphasizing the violation of the detenue's constitutional rights.
2. Despite the respondents being represented by the Govt. Advocates and Addl. Adv. General, counter has not been filed for last over one year, notwithstanding, about a dozen opportunities have been taken to file the counter. It has been in this context that the case has come on board for hearing.
3. Mr. M.M. Khan, AAG, too is heard. He has produced detention file and same is available with record.
4. The admitted facts on record are that the detenu has been detained first time under D.M. Srinagar Detention order dated 25.1.2001 (Annexure-A). This order and the detention was challenged in HC Petition No.27/2001. The writ court on 13.11.2001 quashed the order and the detention was direction to release the detenue unless required in any other case. However, the detenue was not released. Then the second order was passed by D.M. Srinagar on 18.2.2002 (Annexure B). This order is under challenge in this petition. The detenue has not been released hereto, notwithstanding the quashment of first detention order.
5. Perusal of the grounds of detention of the first detention and the second detention available on record fairly show that out of seven paras comprising the grounds of detention of the first detention order, quashed by the court, at least five paras have been reproduced and used as grounds of detention for the second detention order without any fresh material after passing of the first detention order. The grounds given in the first detention order are ditto reproduced in the grounds of detention of impugned second order. The allegation that the second impugned detention order is passed on selfsame grounds as in the first detention order is manifestly more than made out on record. No counter or allegations to deny all this is on record. The record fully supports the submissions on this count. Whether this aspect of the case was placed before detaining authority, there is no material on record. However, contextually, in V.C. Mohan V. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 1205), it is firmly reiterated:-
".... We wish to state that no placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a serious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.