The judgment establishes the importance of preventive detention in maintaining public order and outlines the limited scope of interference at the pre-execution stage.

1. District Magistrate Jammu respondent No.2 in Letters Patent Appeal on hand, vide Order No.01/PSA of 2012 dated 11th April 2012, ordered detention of appellant to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 8(1)(a), J&K Public Safety Act, 1978,on consideration of dossier received from Senior Superin#31;tendent of Police, Jammu, on 7th April 2012.

2. The appellant avoided execution of detention order and respondent No.2 vide No. DMJ/PSA/131-36 dated 30th April 2012, in exercise of powers under Section 12(b), J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, issued notice to appellant, requiring appellant to appear before him within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

3. Before any further action would be taken by respondent No.2 to ensure execution of detention order, appellant filed writ petition, being OWP No.729/2012, before this Court. The Writ Court on 24th July 2012, passed ad-interim order, directing respondents not to detain appellant and also stayed operation of process for attachment of appellants property.

4. The order dated 24th July 2012, was questioned in LPA (OW) No.60/2012. The LPA Court declined to interfere and instead asked Learned Single Judge lo dispose of main petition.

5. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 8th October 2012. Learned Single Judge took the view that criminal acts attributed to a person sought to be placed under preventive detention may at times not only affect law and order but also public order and that criminal acts mentioned in grounds of detention as alleged against appellant would definitely have affect on the tempo of life and thus consequently on the public order. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention that grounds of detention mostly referred to past activities of appellant and were remote in point of time and could not be used to order preventive detention. In the opinion of learned Single Judge, appellant, in facts and circumstances of case, could not draw any support from law laid down in K.K. Sarvana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. [2008 (9) SC 89]. It was held that grounds of detention would, in all circumstances, lead a reasonable person to conclusion that these .activities were of such a nature, which would have affect on the public order. The writ petition was held meritless and accordingly dismissed.

6. The writ court judgement dated 8th October 2012 is questioned in the present Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds that case, set up by appellant to assail detention order, has not been dealt with, let alone appreciated by Writ Court in right perspective. It is insisted that as Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, in his dossier dated 7th April 2012, withheld important information from Detaining Authority, the detention order is liable to be quashed. The appellant insists that had aforesaid information been provided, Detaining Authority would have felt dis#31;suaded from passing detention order. Reference, in particular, is made to case FIR Nos.152/2007, 79/2010, 42/2012, 80/2012, mentioned in the dossier and shown to have been registered against appellant. It is pleaded that appellant has since been acquitted in case FIR No.71/1999 a fact not brought to the notice of Detaining Authority. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, is said to have also withheld information as regards status of case FIR No.152/2007, and information that investigation of FIR No.42/2012 and 80/2012 stood concluded and charge-sheet pre#31;sented in competent court.

7. The appellant, placing reliance on law laid down in AIR 2009 SC (268), insists that detention order on said ground ought to have been held illegal and set-aside. It is reiterated that detention order has been passed at the instance of Inspector General of Police, Jammu, (respondent No.3), who, according to appellant, is a close associate of respondents 6 to 8. The detention order is said to be fallout of OWP No.379/2012 and petit