2003 Supreme(J&K) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
S.K. Gupta, J.
Mohd. Ayaz Lone - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Anr. - Respondent
HC No. 347/2002
Decided On : 02 December, 2003
Advocate For Appellant: N.A. Beigh
Advocate For Respondent: M.A. Beigh
Non-supply of material and violation of constitutional rights led to the quashing of the detention order.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge to detention order under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - [J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Article 22(5)] - The court discussed the non-supply of material including the dossier, FIR, and seizure memo to the detenue, violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority based on lack of material. The court quashed the detention order due to illegalities and lack of sustainable grounds.
Fact of the Case:
Mohd. Ayaz Lone was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, and his father challenged the detention order on various grounds, including non-supply of material and violation of constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was illegal and quashed it, ordering the release of the detenue.
Issues: Non-supply of material, violation of constitutional rights, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The detention order was quashed due to illegalities and lack of sustainable grounds.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and ordered the release of the detenue.
2. To begin with, it is submitted that the detaining authority has not supplied the material including the dossier, FIR, copy of seizure memo to the detenue though referred to and relied upon as material in the grounds of detention and thus depriving him from making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention, therefore, the order of detention is rendered bad in law.
3. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof have not been supplied to the detenue in the language understood by him nor any translated script in the language, which is understandable by the detenue, has been provided to him. Failure to do so amounts to denial of affording opportunity to the detenue to make effective and meaningful representation against the detention order, is a clear violation of Article 22(5) of die Constitution of India.
4. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detnue was already in custody in connection with a Criminal case registered against him falsely without any basis and there being no compelling reasons and cogent material available with the detaining authority for passing the detention order, which is, thus, rendered illegal and unsustainable in law. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority has drawn subjective satisfaction from the record which has been made available to him by Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag. The detention order makes a reference of report/dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag and recites that that an FIR is registered against him and there is recovery of arms and ammunition from his possession. The same record having not been annexed with the dossier and also not supplied to the detenue at the time of execution of detention order, makes it manifest that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind and on this count alone, the detention order deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that grounds mentioned in the detention order are vague being neither specific nor definite. It is clear case of non-application of mind.
5. Respondents, through the detaining authority, have filed counter wherein, it is submitted that Mohmmad Ayaz Lone, S/o Gh. Mohammad Lone, was an active member of Hizbul-Mujahideen Organization and was indulging in subversive activities which were against the security of the State and in this connection he was arrested by 7th R.R. in Andohoora Achabal, Anantnag in March 2002 and FIR No. 27/2000 u/s 7/25 of Arms Act was registered against him in Police Station Achabal. Arms and ammunition of the description indicated in the dossier were recovered from him. Lastly, it is stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of well founded material, detention order against the detenue was issued by the competent authority which was subsequently executed on 06-05-02 and confirmed by the Government on 08-05-02. Grounds of detention were explained to the detenue in the language known to him. The detenue was also informed that he can make an effective representation against the order of detention. His case was also referred to Advisory Board. It was further contended by the respondents that the provisions of Public Safety Act as well as the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution have been strictly complied with and the