The petitioners son, Deepak Kumar, has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar, vide order No. DMS/PSA/70 dated 18-10-2002 and in order to prevent him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act") the detenue has been detained for a period of 12 months and lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, vide Government Order No.Home/PB-V/2417 of 2002 dated 12-12-2002. The order of detention passed by the detaining authority has been challenged by the detenue on variety of grounds, enumerated in para 5 of the petition, which are detailed as under:

"(a) That the grounds on the basis of which the son of the petitioner has been detained are not covered by the grounds mentioned in section 8 of the Public Safety Act of 1978. A photo copy of chapter IV, section 8 of the Public Safety Act is attached herewith for perusal of the Honble court as Annexure "B".

(b) That no satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority before passing the order, recording of satisfaction by the detaining Authority is a condition precedent for issuing the detention order which is not available in the case of the son of the petitioner. The bare perusal of the grounds of detention as well as the order no where states that the detaining authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 has recorded its satisfaction before passing the order, thus the order of detention being contrary to the grounds of detention contained under section 8 of the Public Safety Act is liable to be quashed and the son of the petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty.

(c) That the order of detention has not been approved by the Govt. till date, the order has not been sent for approval to the Government by the respondent No.2, forwarding the order for the approval of the Government and approval of the Government is a condition precedent for detaining an individual under the Public Safety Act, thus in absence of the approval of the Government, the order is liable to be set aside.

(d) That the detention order does not mention the period for which the son of the petitioner has been detained. Mentioning of the period is also one of the requirements for detaining a person under the Public Safety Act. The bare perusal of the order no where mentions that for how long the son of the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Public Safety Act. This shows the non-application of mind of the detaining authority before passing the order. It appears that the respondent No.2 has not passed the order himself nor has gone through the record, the order appears to have been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar and the respondent No.2 has simply affixed his signatures without going through the record, the grounds of detention and without going through section 8 of the Public Safety Act, thus the order suffers from illegalities and irregularities which are apparent on the face of the record, thus the order is liable to be quashed.

(e) That no references were made to the Advisory Board constituted under section 14 of the Public Safety Act Non-making of a reference to the Advisory Board is fatal, reference to the Advisory Board is a condition precedent. The respondent No. 2 was required to make a reference to the Advisory Board which the respondent No. 2 has not done, neither the same is evident from the detention order, thus the order of detention being illegal as such is liable to be set aside.

(f) That the grounds of detention are vague, no sufficient material has been supplied as well as attached with the grounds of detention indicating the nature and details of the allegations. Mere mentioning the section of the judicial code are not sufficient. Even otherwise those offences are punishable under the judicial law, thus the issuance of the detention order in such a case is legal and is liable to be quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document