1. After quashment of two detention orders passed against the petitioner, third detention order which is impugned in the instant petition has been passed.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the detenu is that she allegedly is affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba outfit. She has been providing shelter to the militants. She is alleged to have carried two bags containing arms and ammunition. In the month of April, 2006, a person known as Abdullah visited her house and asked her to conceal a bag containing arms and ammunition i.e. 2 AK rifles and four hand grenades. Thereafter, some more hand grenades were delivered to her. So in addition to dumping the arms and ammunition, she used to transport the same, `in the1 month of May, 2006, Lashkar-e-Taiba outfit hatched a conspiracy and carried out suicidal attack in Sheri Kashmir Park. In this connection she was contacted and was asked to hand over a bag full of arms and ammunition to one Mohd. Yousuf Dagga. On 20.05.2006, she is alleged to have handed over bag containing two rifles to Mohd. Yousaf Dagga at Idd Gah and one grenade was retained at her residence. After suicidal attack was carried out case as FIR No.51/06 was registered in Police Station, Kothi Bagh for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307 R.P.C.

3. Mst. Zahida, detenu, initially had been arrested in connection with said case Thereafter, while in custody was detained pursuant to detention order no. DMS/PSA/29 dated 30.09.2006. The said order of detention was quashed by this Court while disposing of HCP No.481/06 on 29.12.2006. Again the detenue while in custody was detained pursuant to second detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/42 dated 08.01.2007. The said detention order again was challenged through the medium of Habeas Corpus petition no. 12/07 which was disposed of by this Court on 01:05.2007 wherein the second detention order was quashed.

4. Detenu had been granted bail in connection with FIR no.51/06 but before she could be released, she was again detained under third detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/19/2007 dated 21.07.2007 which is under challenge in the instant petition.

5. Heard appearing counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted that all the three detention orders have been passed on similar grounds, which is unwarranted. In support thereof, he relied on judgment AIR 1985 SC 697.

6. Appearing counsel for respondents confronted with this situation, submitted that as per Section 19 (2) Of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "Act") fresh order of detention on the same facts is permissible, in case of, dis continuance of earlier order of detention on account of technical defect. Secondly, when the earlier order of detention has been revoked.

7. Though appearing counsel for the petitioner projected other grounds as find place in the petition but same are not required to be dealt with as already projected contention has the prevailing force. The question as to whether on similar grounds third detention order could be passed; requires consideration.

8. By interpreting Sub Section (2) of Section 19 of the Act, it is to be made clear that the detention order if revoked or discontinued on account of technical defect or on account of legal defect by the authorities concerned, then it is open for the detaining authority to pass second detention order on the same grounds after removal of technical defects or legal flaws but once order of detention has been quashed by the court while invoking writ jurisdiction, then on the same grounds, fresh detention order cannot be passed. The judgment referred and relied as reported in AIR 1985 SC 697 is quiet applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the reported judgment it has been held: -

"9. The power conferred under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s (1) of S.11 is in fact extension of the power recognized under S.21 of the General Clauses Act and while under the General Clauses Act, the power is exercisable by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document