The detention order must be supported by compelling reasons, and the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenue in order to be valid.

1. Subject, Gulzar Ahmad Wani, son of Ghulam Hassan Wani, resident of Nowpora, Tehsil Tral District Pulwama, through his father, Ghulam Hassan Wani, seeks to quash the detention order bearing No. 39/DMP/PSA/04 dated 10.11.2004 passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Pulwama in exercise of powers in terms of Section 8 of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue stands detained for a period upto 12 months and lodged in District Jail Kathua on various grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2. The respondents have filed reply and have resisted the petition. It is averred in the grounds of detention that detenue was apprehended by 42 RR on 23.10.2003 and FIR No.170/2004 under Section 7/25 of Arms Act came to be registered. And later on the detenue was detained under Public Safety Act in terms of order 39/DMP/PSA/04 dated 10-11-2004.

3. Considered. In terms of annexure-A, i.e., impugned order, the detaining authority, District Magistrate, Pulwama has detained the detenue in terms of Public Safety Act for a period of 12 months. It is profitable to reproduce the impugned order herein;-

1. Whereas, on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me by Superintendent of Police Pulwama/Awantipora/ CID CIK Srinagar vide No: CS/D-23,24 and 25/2004/4136-38 dated 29-10-2004, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent Shri Gulzar Ahmad Wani S/o Gh. Hassan Wani R/o Nowpora Tehsil Tral, District Pulwama from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary so to do.

2. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, I, District Magistrate, Pulwama hereby direct that the said Shri Gulzar Ahmad Wani S/o Gh. Hassan Wani R/o Nowpora Tehsil Tral, District Pulwama be detained and lodged in District Jail Kathua for a period upto 12 months.

4. Whether the grounds of detention were furnished by SSP, Pulwama or Awantipora or by CID CIK Srinagar is not spelled out in the impugned order.

5. It appears that the detaining authority has passed the order without application of mind and in a routine manner.

6. In terms of letter dated 10.11.2004, contained in page-2 of the record, the detenue was asked to make a representation in terms of Public Safety Act and reference has been made to the dossier 02.11.2004 but neither such communication has been referred in the impugned order nor such communication is available on the record. This also suggests that detaining authority has passed the impugned order without application of mind. It was for the detaining authority to inform the detenue in order to enable the detenue to make representation. Thus the detenue has been deprived of making representation.

7. It is also averred in the petition that the grounds of detention and other material was not supplied to the detenue. There is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that same were supplied to the detenue except a Photostat copy of the report of serving officer which discloses that the grounds of detention and contents of detention warrant were read over to the detenue in Urdu and Kashmiri language. It has not been explained in which language the same have been explained to the detenue. The serving officer should have filed affidavit explaining the actual facts, but that has not been done.

8. In Sophia Ghulam Mohammad Bham vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC.3051), the Apex Court has held as under;-

¦¦¦The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenu to make a representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed only when all the grounds on which the order is based are communicated to the detenue and the material on which those grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied to the person detained in his own language¦¦¦

9. The Apex Court in case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document