Point of Law: It is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention.

JUDGMENT :

TASHI RABSTAN, J.

1. District Magistrate, Shopian-respondent No. 2 (for brevity “detaining authority”) has by Order No. 87/DMS/PSA/2021 dated 18.10.2021 placed Muzamil Ahmad Dar S/o A.B Rasheed Dar R/o Ray-Kaprin, Shopian (for short “detenue”) under preventive detention, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is this order, petitioner has challenged in this petition and seeks quashment thereof on grounds averred therein.

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in opposition to the petition. Detention record has also been produced by counsel for the respondents to substantiate the statements made in counter affidavit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, to augment the case set up by the petitioner in the petition on hand contended that the procedural safeguards, envisaged under the Constitution of India in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act have not been complied with while issuing the impugned detention order. It is further contended that the grounds of detention are vague, equivocal, obscure, indefinite, ambiguous and not connected with the detenue. It is further averred that the material on the basis of which the impugned detention order has been passed, i.e., order of detention, dossier, recovery memo, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents, have not been supplied to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents insists that detention order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority and detention order is in accordance with law and there is no violation or infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, he exhorts dismissal of petition.

6. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, guarantee safeguard to detenue to be informed, as soon as may be, of grounds on which order of detention is made, which led to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and also to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation against order of detention. Detenue is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation, which on being considered, may obtain relief to him. Detention record, made available by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that detention order was made on proper application of mind, to the facts of the case and detenue was delivered at the time of execution of detention order, the material and grounds of detention and also informed that he had a right to represent against his preventive detention. Perusal of overleaf of detention order depicts its execution. Perusal of the execution report signed by the detenue reveals that one ASI Fayaz Ahmed P. No. 962609 of Police Station Zainpura executed the detention warrant of the detenue on 20.10.2021 and the contents of detention warrant and dossier documents has been read over and explained to the detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri language which the detenue understood fully in token of which his signatures has been obtained. It also divulges that detenue was informed that he can make representation to the Government against his detention order. It is contended by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the relevant material has been supplied to the detenue against proper receipt. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. Detaining Authority has narrated facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under Section 8 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from act