Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Asif Ashraf Malik (the detenue), has filed this petition through his father, namely, Mohammad Ashraf Malik, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing the detention order bearing No.16/DMS/PSA/2019 dated 06.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian (the detaining authority) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State/Country. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (the Act of 1978).

2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(I) That previously the detenue was placed under preventive detention pursuant to two consecutive detention orders bearing Nos.122/DMS/PSA/ 2018 dated 31.07.2018 and 154/DMS/PSA/ 2019 dated 17.01.2019. Both these orders have been quashed by this Court but without there being any fresh material or grounds, the impugned detention order has been passed by the detaining authority;

(II) That the material on the basis of which impugned detention order has been passed has not been supplied to the detenue thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention.

(III) That there has been total non-application of mind while passing the impugned, inasmuch in the grounds there is no mention about the quashment of second detention order bearing No. 154/DMS/PSA/ 2019 dated 17.01.2019.

3. On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein besides other contentions, it is submitted that detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State as mentioned in the FIRs registered against him. The detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. The order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. So far as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the judgment dated 27.05.2019, passed in HCP No.51/2019 along with copies of grounds of detention. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that in the earlier petition i.e. HCP No.242/2018, the petitioner had challenged detention order No.122/DMS/PSA/ 2018 dated 31.07.2018 which was quashed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 07.12.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner had been placed under preventive detention in terms of detention order bearing No.154/DMS/PSA/ 2019 dated 17.01.2019 that was challenged by the petitioner by way of HCP No.51/2019. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.05.2019 with a direction to the respondents to release the detenue forthwith. A perusal of the grounds of detention that are subject matter of the instant petition and the grounds of detention which were subject matter of earlier detention orders reveals that the same are identical, inasmuch as, the grounds of detention on all the three occasions are primarily based on FIR Nos.289/2017, 290/2017 and 88/2018. The grounds of detention that have formed the basis of the impugned detention order reveal that there is no reference to any fresh material against the detenue.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar Vs. N. L. Kalna and others, (1989) 2 SCC 318, while dealing with similar question, has observed as