1. Ghulam Mohammad Bhat S/o Jalal-ud-Din Bhat R/o Hyderpora, Budgam (the detenue) has been detained by the District Magistrate, Udhampur under section 8 of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act) vide Order No. PSA-2007/17 dated 19.12.2007. His son namely Irfan Ahmad Bhat (the petitioner) has, through the medium of the present petition challenged the order of detention on various grounds inter-alia that a copy of the order of detention has not been furnished to the detenue, that there were no compelling reasons for directing preventive detention of the detenue with the detaining authority, that the grounds on the basis of which the detenue has been detained under the provisions of the Act are not only ambiguous, uncertain and untenable but are also untrue and that the proper procedure has not been followed by the detaining authority while directing preventive detention of the detenue.

2. Petitioner has on these grounds, prayed for quashment of the detention order.

3. Respondents have filed their reply through Shri O.P. Kalandaria, District Magistrate Udhampur who has stated that the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of the Act vide order No. PSA-2007/17 dated 19.12.2007 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention of the detenue was ordered in view of his activities being prejudicial to the security of the State. The respondents state that the warrant was executed and the detenue was taken into preventive custody on 27.12.2007 after the contents of warrant were read over and explained to him in Urdu/ English languages, which he understood fully as in lieu thereof, the detenue has put his signature on the executed copy of detention warrant on its endorsement. The detenue was informed vide letter No. 156-58/DMU dated 19.12.2007 about the detention and about his right to submit representation against his detention to the Government, but he did not choose to file any representation.

4. Heard. I have considered the matter. I have perused the record pertaining to the detention of the detenue.

5. Mr. M.A. Qayoom learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of detention on three main grounds. He contends that the petitioner was already in preventive detention, though released on parole, second detention was not proper. It is further submitted by him that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to direct preventive detention of the detenue as such there is complete non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. The learned counsel states that the letter dated 19.12.2007 asking the petitioner to file representation to the order of detention is dated 19.12.2007 while as order of detention was executed and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 27.12.2007 as such the letter asking him to file representation becomes meaningless. Learned counsel has also submitted that the letter directing the detenue to file his representation shows that the representation was to be submitted to the Govt. while as at the relevant time the matter was still under the consideration of the detaining authority.

6. The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate is based on the grounds of detention, a copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure-D.

7. The grounds of detention state that the detenue is the legal advisor to All Party Hurriyat Conference (Geelani) and is also the main brain behind raising of Hawala money for terrorist activities, representative for Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terrorist outfit and Hurriyat Conference which has its deep rooted links/ in and spearheading insurgency in the State of J&K and other parts of the country with sole motive to liberate and seek succession of State from Union of India by waging war against the lawfully established Government by indulging in subversive and disruptive activities against the State and by inculcating separatist feelings and crea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document