Pursuant to order No. 01/2015 dated 22.05.2015, petitioner has been detained for having been indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

According to the learned Additional Advocate General detention order has been confirmed, the period of detention at the first instance has been fixed as three months, which has expired on 22.07.2015, but was extended for a period of three months which also expired on 22.11.2015. Then again it has been extended for further period of three months which too has expired on 18.02.2016. But before its expiry, the Government has issued one more order dated 16.02.2016 whereunder the order of detention has been extended for a further period of three months, which is to expire on 18.05.2016.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the frequent extensions of period of detention are arbitrary. No new position is forthcoming from the records, which would demonstrate that the respondents were persuaded to extend the period of detention. Buttressing the submission, submitted that, in fact, the material which was considered at the time of initial order dated 22.05.2015, has been again referred and considered while granting extensions. Same is impermissible.

Learned counsel for the respondents highlights that same material could be used for extension of the detention order. In connection therewith, has referred to Section 19 of the Public Safety Act, which provides for revocation of order of detention. In terms of the said Section, the authority has power to revoke or modify the order of detention, once the power is invoked under Section 19, there shall be no bar for passing fresh order of detention on the same facts and material. The submission in untenable, because order of detention has neither been revoked nor modified under Section 19 of the Act.

Position has to be analyzed from different angle, i.e., earlier period of detention against a person indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order was one year, as is clear from Section 18 of the Act. The said section has been amended in the year 2012, prescribing that the words 12 months shall be substituted by the words three months in the first instance, which may be extended up to 12 months, which in turn would suggest that the order passed vis-a-vis extension does not fall within the trapping of the Section 19 of the Act directly.

The order of detention passed can be extended, provided some plausible cause is projected and considered while granting the extension. Otherwise, fixing period of three months at the first instance will be illogical. Something more is required to be done for extension after period of first detention order. Nothing has been spelt out in addition to what was earlier considered. While extending the period of detention, what persuaded the authority to extend the period of detention from time to time is not clear. It appears to have been done simply to dilute the operation of amendment, otherwise the petitioner, in fact, has been detained for a period of twelve months.

Learned Additional Advocate General has produced the order of extension of detention dated 16.02.2016 along with copy of communication addressed by IG CID Jammu to Principal Secy, Jammu in which reference to earlier seven cases registered against the petitioner has been made and thereafter it has been mentioned that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the said cases, his detention is necessary, otherwise petitioner will again indulge in the same activities. What is surprising is that case No. 1, FIR No. 37/2002, as referred to in the communication, after completion of the investigation, had culminated in filing of charge sheet (Challan) and thereafter the petitioner after facing the trial has been acquitted vide judgment dated 05.09.2013. It means authorities were not aware about the fact that said case had already been finally decided, otherwise it would not have been recorded in