1. Respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section 8(2) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short "Act of 1978") ordered for the detention of the petitioner (for short "detenu") vide order No. DMS/PSA/29/2010 dated 07.07.2010. Detenu has been ordered to be lodged in sub jail Hiranagar, Jammu and till date he continues to be in the confinement.

2. Detention order has been called in question by filing this petition on 09.07.2010 inter alia on the grounds that the grounds of detention are vague, uncertain, ambiguous, cryptic and indefinite; the material referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu thus preventing him from making effective representation against the order of detention; copies of the FIRs referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention have neither been provided nor served upon the detenu; respondent No. 2 has relied upon stale and outdated material for detaining the detenu.

3. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is pleaded that respondent No. 3 for malafide reasons has prepared the dossier, which is one of those documents which has become basis for issuing the detention order.

4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit and preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the petition by stating that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1978 same is premature and merits dismissal.

5. Mr. G. Mustafa, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petition is premature thus being not maintainable at this stage and prayed for its dismissal. Learned counsel referred to various provisions of Act of 1978 to support his contention.

6. Mr. M. I. Qadiri, learned Advocate General in this behalf referred to Sections 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Act of 1978. Learned counsel also submitted that in terms of the Act of 1978, Government has constituted an Advisory Board. In terms of Section 15 of the Act of 1978, Government has submitted relevant record on 27th July, 2010 to the State Advisory Board as provided under said provision of the Statute. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to Section 16 of the Act of 1978 to indicate that complete procedure has been provided for consideration of the material by the State Advisory Board and even for affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned. Learned counsel also referred to Sub-Section 3 of the Section 16 of the Act of 1978 to indicate that Advisory Board has to specify its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. Learned counsel also referred to Sub-Section 2 of the Section 17 of the Act of 1978 to show that in case the Advisory Board in its opinion states that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government is duty bound to revoke the detention order and release the concern person forthwith. Learned counsel submitted that as the matter is pending consideration of the State Advisory Board, which has to make its report within eight weeks from the date of detention, the detenu has to wait for the said period. It is in this backdrop, the learned Advocate General submitted that the petition is premature. Learned Advocate General also referred to and relied upon judgments reported in AIR 1987 SC 725, AIR 1994 SC 2179 and AIR 1985 SC 330.

7. Learned Advocate General vehemently argued that in view of the scheme of the Act of 1978, more particularly, the mandate contained in Sections 16 and 17, an efficacious alternative remedy being available to the detenu, petition is not maintainable and merits rejection. Learned Advocate General while placing whole hog reliance on Section 16(3) and Section 17(2) of the Act of 1978 submitted that the conjoint reading of these provisions of law would show that in case the Advisory Board report that there is no sufficient cause for detaining the detenu, Government is duty bound to revoke the detention order and release the detenu forthwith. Learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document