Point of Law: Single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fish-plates respectively, was held sufficient to sustain the order of detention.

JUDGMENT :

TASHI RABSTAN, J.

1. Impugned in this petition is Order No. 13/DMP/PSA/21 dated 04.03.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby Javaid Ahmad Bhat, petitioner herein (for brevity, detenu), has been placed under preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. The case as set up by the petitioner-detenu is that respondent No. 2 while slapping preventive detention of detenu has not adhered to the constitutional safeguards available to him under the Constitution of India as well as the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. It is contended that the detaining authority has issued the detention order without application of mind, arbitrarily and misusing the power vested with respondent No. 2, thus deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that he had never been involved in any subversive or unlawful activities which would cause prejudice to the security of the State. It is contended that neither the grounds of detention nor any other material considered in framing the grounds of detention were ever supplied to him. The status of FIRs, which have been made basis for issuing the detention order, have not been disclosed. It is contended that he was not informed that he had a right to make a representation against his detention order nor the respondents disclosed to him before which authority of Government he can make the representation. Further, it is contended that the communication received from the Superintendent of Police by respondent No. 2, which was made basis for issuing the detention order, was not supplied to him, so as to enable him to make an effective representation.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit resisted the contentions of petitioner-detenu averring therein that the aim of preventive detention under the Public Safety Act is to stop the illegal activities of an individual which otherwise cannot be stopped when such an individual creates havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, peace, stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding the nation’s unity and integrity. It is averred that the petitioner-detenu falls under the category of being a threat to security of the State. It is further averred that each and every norm has been followed while detaining the detenu under the Public Safety Act. Further, it is contended that the grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by the detaining authority came to be furnished to the detenu well within the statutory period provided under Section 13 of the Act. It is also contended that since the activities of the detenu were highly prejudicial to the security of the State, therefore, to prevent him from acting in such activities, he has been detained strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Public Safety Act.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the record, which has been produced in the shape of attested photocopies.

5. The record so produced reveals that the petitioner-detenu under his signatures received a total of 27 leaves including the copy of detention order, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier, copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents at Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The petitioner-detenu was also informed that he can make a representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention order, if he so desires. Further, in paragraph (vi) of the grounds of challenge in the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that his father had obtained these documents from the respondents; meaning thereby the petitioner has himself admitted regarding receiving of these documents. As rega