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

JUDGMENT :

1. District Magistrate, Srinagar-respondent No. 2 (for brevity “detaining authority”), has, by Order No. DMS/PSA/56/2021 dated 18.10.2021 placed ShriUmar Nawaz Khan Alias Gori S/o Shahnawaz KhanR/o Zaindar Mohalla, Srinagar (for short “detenue”) under preventive detention, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 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 allegations leveled against the detenue in the grounds of detention are baseless, concocted, false and manipulated. It is further contended that at the behest of his business rivals the detenue was booked in a number of criminal cases registered in the year 2010, 2012 and 2016 and subsequently he was admitted to bail in all the cases. It is averred that in all the cases the detenue has been acquitted except the one, i.e., FIR No. 61 of 2016 in which trial is going on and the FIR No. 50 of 2012 was withdrawn. It is averred that in the year 2019 the detenue was detained under Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, which was also managed by his business rivals and subsequently, the said detention order was revoked. It is further contended that the material on the basis of which the impugned detention order has been passed has not been provided to the detenue so that he would make an effective and meaningful representation before the concerned authority.

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 J&K 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 Javeed Ahmad ASI No. 15/S of Police Station Shaheedgunj executed the PSA warrant against the detenue on 21.10.2021 and contents of PSA warrant one leaf, notice one leaf, grounds of detention two leaves, in total (four leaves) were read over and explained to the detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri languages which the detenue understood fully. 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 Autho