JUDGMENT :

1. The detenue namely Amir Shafi Bhat Son of Mohammad Shafi Bhat resident of Karimabad Tehsil, Pulwama, through his father Mohammad Shafi Bhat, seeks quashment of detention order No. 17/DMP/PSA/2019 dated 15.03.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, with consequent prayer for release of the detenue forthwith.

2. The detention order, inter alia, is challenged on the grounds:

(a) That there are no compelling reasons given in the order or the grounds of detention to take the detenue in preventive detention, moreso in view of the fact that as on the date of passing of the aforesaid order of detention, the detenue was already in custody;

(b) That the detenue has not been provided the material forming basis of the detention order, to make an effective representation against his detention order;

(c) That the grounds of detention have not been furnished to the detenue in a language which he understood.

(d) That the detention order suffers from non-application of mind as the Detaining Authority did not take note of the fact that the detenue had been in the preventive detention and was discharged also of the allegations forming basis of such detention.

3. Pursuant to notice respondents appeared through their learned counsel and filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the detention order is well founded, in fact and law, and seeks dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the grounds taken in the detention order and the material referred to and relied upon has no relevance because the detenue was already in custody, therefore, there was no possibility that the detenue would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

6. It is submitted that in absence of material the detention order is passed on mere ipsi dixit of Detaining Authority, therefore, the detention order is bad in law. In support of his submissions learned counsel referred to and relied upon the law laid down in case reported as (2006) 2 SCC 664 delivered in case titled T. V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana v. State through Secretary and Anr.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that the detenue has not been provided the material referred to in the grounds of detention resultantly the right of making effective representation against the impugned order of detention, as enshrined under Article 22 (3) of the Constitution, has been violated.

8. Mr. Mir Suhail, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order of detention is well founded and there is nothing bad about it. He submitted that the detenue has been provided the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while detaining him. He further submitted that the detenue has also been informed about his right of making representation against his detention. He submitted that the Detaining Authority has fully applied its mind while issuing the detention order and there is nothing on record to controvert it. Learned State Counsel referred to and relied upon the law laid down in 2011 (2) JKJ 213; 2012 (1) JKJ, 332 and 20123 (I) SLJ 303.

9. Perusal of the records would reveal that the detenu has been furnished the grounds of detention along with the requisite material. He has also been informed about his right of making representation against his detention, but the detenue has chosen not to make the representation, therefore, the fault, if any, is attributable to the detenue and not to the Detaining Authority. Thus, the ground raised vis-à-vis non-furnishing of material to the detenue is rejected.

10. It is to be borne in mind that preventive detention has been held to be a necessary evil, and liberty of an individual is curtailed, within reasonable bounds, for the good of the people. However, there are certain safeguards to be fulfilled while detaining a person under the law providing for such deten