1. Mohammad Yousuf Malla, S/o Abdul Gani Malla, R/o Check Ganastan, Sumbal, Baramulla, was detained by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, vide order No.156 of 2004 dated 31st March 04, in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). The present petition has been filed by the detenu through his brother Farooq Ahmad, seeking quashing of order impugned.

2. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds taken in the petition but at the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument on the point that the detaining authority has passed the detention order without application of mind. It is stated that the detention order has been passed on 31st March04, which has actually been issued against one Mohammad Ayoub Malla, S/o Abdul Gani Malla, but subsequently a corrigendum was issued on 25th June04, vide which the name of the detenu has been changed to Mohammad Yousuf Malla. He further stated that the grounds of detention and other relevant material was not put up before the Government for its approval. It is stated that the grounds of detention itself show that the detaining authority has not even read the draft before signing it. He pointed out that in the last paragraph of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that the detenue is a locally trained militant of Ikhwan Party Outlawed Organisation. His remaining at large is highly prejudicial to the security of the State, in the event of his release on bail. He submitted that the detaining authority is not aware as to when the detention order was passed and whether the detenu was at large or he was under custody. He also submitted that the order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the Act. It is stated that there is delay in execution of the detention order but no explanation has been put forth by the respondents as to why the detention order was not executed within the prescribed period.

3. Mr. JI Ganai, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents submitted that there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act as the detenu was at large. He submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu for not executing the order as per Section 13 of the Act as he was not in custody. He also submitted that while passing the detention order there was a typographical error with regard to the name of the detenu which was subsequently ratified by issuing a corrigendum in this regard dt. 25th June04. It is submitted that after the corrigendum was issued, there was no necessity to put the case before the Government for its approval second time as the approval was already taken for detention of the detenu.

4. Before considering the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the Act.

5. Section 8 of the Act authorized the Government to pass a detention order of certain persons. It reads as under: -

"8. Detention of certain persons- (1) The Government may- (a) If satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to--

(i) the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order;

that with a view of regulating his continued presence in the State or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from the State, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) any of the following officers, namely:-

(i) Divisional Commissioners,

(ii) District Magistrate,

may, if satisfied as provided in sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (a) or (a-1) of sub section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub section.

(4) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars, as in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document