1. Gulshad Ahmad Bhagwan detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 by District Magistrate, Kupwara vide his Order No. 33 DMK/PSA of 2006 dated 23.10.2006 has filed this petition through his father Ghulam Ali seeking quashing of the detention order, setting him to liberty and for paying him compensation for his illegal detention.

2. Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the detenue had not been supplied the material which the District Magistrate had relied upon while directing his detention in preventive custody. This omission, according to the learned counsel, violates Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, rendering petitioners detention illegal besides being unconstitutional. She says that despite detenues being in. police custody in F.I.R No. 55/2006 registered under Section 7/25 Arms Act at Police Station Sogam, the District Magistrate had procedure to issue the detention order without thorn being any compelling necessity therefor. Learned counsel submits that similar detention order passed in respect of Tariq Ahmed Hajam has been quashed by this Court in HCP No. 536/2006 and in that view of the matter, petitioners detention is unjustified.

3. Mr. B.S. Salathia, Learned State Counsel, while producing the detention records, relies upon the grounds of detention to justify petitioners detention in preventive custody.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records made available by the State Counsel.

5. Perusal of Order No. 33 DMK/PSA of 2006 dated 23.10.2000 indicates that, the District Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction on the basis of dossier and other connected documents which Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, had produced before him vide his letter No. PROS/DET/06/2006/377-80 dated 07.10.2006.

6. The official records, however, reveal that what was supplied to the detenue was only one page document containing the grounds of detention.

7. Non-supply of the copy of F.I.R No.55/2006, mentioned in the grounds of detention, police dossier and other connected documents relied upon by the District Magistrate while issuing the detention order, to the detenue thus deprives him of his statutory right to make nil effective representation against his detention because no effective representation as contemplated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India may be conceived unless the material which had formed the basis for the detention of the detenue had been supplied to him.

8. Supplying of all the material relied upon by the detaining authority to the detenu is the mandate of law except, however in those case where detaining authority, in exercise of its power under Section 13(2) of the Public Safety Act considers it against the public interest to disclose the facts, on the basis whereof, it had proceeded to record his satisfaction.

9. No such case as contemplated by Section 13(2) of the Public Safety Act has been projected in the present case.

10. Such being the case, non-supply of material relied upon by District Magistrate to the detenu, renders his detention unsustainable being in violation of section 13 of the Public Safety Act.

11. Learned District Magistrate, as it so appears from the grounds of detention as also from Order No. 33 DMK/PSA of 2006 dated 23.10.2006 was aware of petitioners being in police custody in F.I.R. No 55/2006 under Section 7/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sogam. Yet without disclosing any compelling necessity/reasons for detaining him in preventive custody, he has which cannot be justified, for the law is well settled that the detaining authority, while issuing a detention order in respect of a person who is already in custody is required to spell out the reasons, on the basis whereof, despite his being in police custody, his detention in preventive custody way warranted.

12. No such case has been projected by the District Magistrate nor do the records on the file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document