JUDGMENT :

Gita Mittal, CJ.—By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 9th May 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the HCP No. 43/2019. This writ petition was filed on behalf of the appellant by his father Ghulam Nabi Naik seeking quashing of detention order No. 71/DMP/PSA/18 dated 19th December 2018 passed in respect of his son Younis Nabi Naik under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. There is no material dispute to the facts giving rise to the instant appeal and to the extent necessary, the same are briefly noted hereafter.

3. On 30th November 2018, an FIR bearing FIR No. 111/2018 was registered by Police Station Tral under Section 120-B Ranbir Penal Code Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) (RPC hereafter) and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on the allegations that on 30th November 2018, the appellant Younis Nabi Naik along-with accomplices Riyaz Ahmad Ganaie, Fayaz Ahmad Wani and Bilal Ahmad Rather were travelling in suspicious circumstances from Pinglish to Hafoo. On reaching towards a Naka/check point erected by the Police and CRPF 180 Bn. they attempted to escape from the said check point, but were unsuccessful. Upon search, these persons were found in possession of illegally acquired explosive material resembling to a homemade Hand Grenade regarding which the said case was registered. These four persons were apprehended in the case and remain lodged in police custody pursuant to orders of remand passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The police alleged that they were having affiliation with the banned terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahideen. During the course of investigation, involvement of seven other persons, namely, Waseem Ahmad Malla, Ghulam Nabi Sheikh, Irshad Ahmad Bhat, Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Mohammad Yousuf Wani, Mohammad Yousuf Chopan & Mudasir Ahmad Khan were found who were also arrayed as accused in the case.

4. On 10th December 2018, a supplementary report under Section 120-B RPC; Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was submitted which were also invoked in the case.

5. While, the appellant was in police custody in the said criminal case, an order being Order No. 71/DMP/PSA/18 dated 19th December 2018 under the provisions of Public Safety Act came to be passed against the appellant. This order of detention was assailed by the appellant by way of a writ petition being HCP No. 43/2019 inter alia on the ground that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind for it not disclosing compelling reasons or circumstances requiring the detention of the appellant in preventive detention; that the order fail to consider that on the date of passing the order of detention, the appellant was already in police custody; that the material which formed the basis of the detention order had not been furnished to the detenu and he had been deprived of the opportunity to make an effective representation against the same and as such, all procedural safeguards enshrined under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India had been violated.

6. The respondents entered appearance in response to the notice to show cause and submitted a counter affidavit defending the action taken by them.

7. The learned Single Judge considered the matter and by the judgment dated 9th May 2019 dismissed HCP No. 43/2019 holding that on perusal of the records, it was revealed that the detenu had been furnished the grounds of detention along-with the requisite material; had been informed about his right of making representation against the detention, but the detenu had chosen not to make a representation and, therefore, fault, if any, was attributable to the detenu and not the detaining authority. The ground raised with re