Point of Law: The Court quashed the detention as it found that there cannot be a greater proof of non-application of mind and that the liberty of a subject being a serious matter, it is not to be tripled with in this casual, indifferent and routine manner.

JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. Through the medium of instant petition quashment of detention order bearing No. 20/DMB/PSA/2021 dated 21.10.2021, (hereinafter for short the ‘impugned order’) passed against the detenu, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat, is being sought for by the petitioner as also a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release.

2. It is being stated in the petition that the detenu is a law abiding and peace-loving citizen and has never been involved in any subversive activity prejudicial to the public order or Security of the State. It is being stated that the detenu believes in peace and harmony and has always been upholding the sovereignty, integrity of the country. It is also being stated that detenu is a social activist, income tax payer and has received commendation from the Government during the social work he has undertaken in the service of the people whose residential houses and other properties were damaged during the earthquake in 2008 and to cement this fact he has annexed certificates of commendation with the instant petition. The detenu is stated to have been arrested on 20th of October, 2021 on the allegations of having developed contacts with various terrorist/secessionist organization to carry out the activities of secessionism and terrorism and was kept in lockup in Police Station, Baramulla and thereafter placed under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention and shifted to District Jail Kupwara on 29thof October 2021.

3. The impugned order is being challenged, inter-alia, on the grounds that detenu had not been provided copies of the relevant material, like copy of dossier, details of any incidence with regard to the alleged association of the detenu with the terrorist organizations or any particular incident regarding his links with secessionist organizations, date and year when the detenu has done that, not a single incident has been spelt out, referred to in the grounds of detention, material, if any, collected during the course of investigation, thus, depriving him to file an effective representation against his detention. The said failure is stated to have infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.

4. On the other hand, respondents, in their reply affidavit filed, resist and controvert the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition and have insisted that the order of detention is preventive and not punitive in nature, while it is being admitted by respondents that detenu was detained pursuant to impugned order. It is being stated that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have had been fulfilled and complied with while detaining the detenu.

5. It is being next contended by respondents that impugned order was executed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and that the detenu was handed over to the Superintendent District Jail, Kupwara, for lodgment and that the contents of detention order/warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenu in the language which he fully understood and in lieu thereof the detenu subscribed his signatures on the execution report/order.

6. It is being also stated that the impugned order was executed by ASI Manzoor Ahmad No. 632/B DPL Baramulla and that the detenu was handed over to Superintendent, District Jail, Kupwara, for lodgment.

7. It is being next stated that the Advisory Board, after considering the material placed before it, in terms of Section 16 of the Act, held that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. On receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed order of detention. Respondents in the process are stated to have complied with all statutory, constitutional provisions and followed all requisite formalities without violating any of them.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused t