1. Subject Ghulam Mohammad Dar has been arrested on 25-04-2000 in FIR 94/2000 under section 7/25 I.A. Act of Police Station Ganderbal. He was held under above punitive detention till 15-06-2000. when he was further detained under preventive custody pursuant to detention Order NO: DMS/PSA/25 dated: 23-05-2000 passed by District Magistrate Srinagar under section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. This order and consequent preventive detention was challenged in H.C. Petition No. 249/2000 before the High Court and vide judgment dated: 10-07-2001, the detention order was quashed and detenue was ordered to be released from capitivity. However, the Government without bringing it to the notice of the court in the above writ petition, revoked the above detention order of District Magistrate Srinagar dated: 23-05-2002 and passed a fresh order No. Home/PB-V/2706 of 2000 dated: 05-09-2000, ordering further detention of the detenue under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act. This order and the detention is under challenge in this petition on number of grounds.

2. However, the counsel confines his submissions and has taken up the following grounds alone to assail the detention: -

Once the detention order was quashed for failure of the Government to produce the detenue before the Advisory Board constituted under section 14 of the J&K Public Safety Act, the order cannot be said to have been cancelled or revoked on a technical ground. The counsel further submits that even before the impugned order was passed, another order of detention in respect of the subject was passed which was also turned down by the Advisory Board for the reason that the detenue has not been produced before the Board. It is misuse of powers and unfair exercise of authority to pass successive orders, notwithstanding the court verdict and opinion of Advisory Board against detention with a view to protect incarceration of the subject under one or other pretext. The counsel further submits that the grounds and the material has not been at all supplied to detenue, therefore, subject cannot be said to have been given an opportunity to make representation against the order to the Government.

3. Government Advocate in reply submits that as the earlier order had been revoked by the Government, the Government was within its powers to pass fresh order in as much as the earlier order was revoked on technical ground that the detenue could be produced before the Advisory Board within the prescribed time period. The counsel concedes that the earlier order dated: 23-05-2000 has been already quashed by the court in which respondents were duly represented by the Government Advocate and the Government Advocates/State Government was given opportunities spreading over several months to file counter or to produce record which they failed to do. But the counsel submits that as the order has been cancelled before the court pronounced judgment on 10-07-2001. therefore, the order was dead. Any finding on the legality or otherwise of the detention in question has no bearing on this case. The counsel also submits that the second order of detention was also passed in September 2000, but that order was again left un-executed as the Advisory Board did not approve the order. The impugned order passed in December 2000 is on self-same grounds as of second detention and rather are dito copy of grounds of the first order passed in May, 2000. The counsel further submits that the detenue has been provided the grounds/material on which the impugned order of December, 2000 is based. The detention record is produced by Mr. G. Mustafa, GA, which is taken on record.

4. First, adverting to question of alleged non-supply of grounds/material on which the impugned detention order dated: 09-12-2000 is based, it would be apt to note para 9 of the Habeas Corpus Petition which reads as:-

"9. That the detenue has neither been served with the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of deten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document