Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.-Petitioner, through his wife, has assailed his detention ordered by District Magistrate, Pulwama (the detaining authority) vide his order No.29/DMP/PSA/20 dated 25.09.2020 (the impugned order). In terms of the impugned order aforesaid, the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order on the grounds detailed in the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner to assail the impugned order, it would be appropriate to briefly state few background facts.

3. On the basis of communication of Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, issued vide his No.Con/PSA/2020/73-96 dated 17.09.2020, whereby some material including dossier and other connected documents in respect of the petitioner was submitted to the detaining authority, the detaining authority arrived at satisfaction that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety act (hereinafter “the Act” for short) and, accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed. The grounds of detention, claimed to have been served upon the petitioner, indicate activities of the petitioners in some detail. As per the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner is affiliated with Jamat-i-Islami Jammu & Kashmir, an organization declared unlawful by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, under sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, by virtue of notification No.S.O.1069 (E) dated 28.02.2019.

4. It is also claimed that the petitioner is involved in illicit trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances and, in this regard, FIR No.80/2011 under Section 27 of NDPS Act stand registered against him in Police Station, Awantipora. Challan in the case, after allegations having been proved, has been presented before the competent court of law.

5. It is on the basis of aforesaid activities of the petitioner and his involvement in the aforesaid FIR as also his association with banned organization Jamat-i-Islami, the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that remaining at large of the petitioner is detrimental to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, his detention under the Act necessitated.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on several grounds. The grounds of challenged which were pressed during the course of arguments by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as under:

(I) That the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority is vitiated for the reason that the detaining authority has clubbed two different types of activities allegedly attributable to the petitioner and it is not clear as to whether the impugned order has been issued to prevent the petitioner from indulging in illicit trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances or it is for maintenance of public order;

(II) That the requisite material relied upon by the detaining authority to derive his satisfaction has not been served upon the petitioner. There is no reference to any of the activities of the petitioner which could demonstrate that even after 28th of February, 2019, when Jamat-i-Islami was declared as unlawful organization, the petitioner has continued his affiliation with the aforesaid organization nor the petitioner has been provided with any material which would indicate that the petitioner was ever associated with the aforesaid organization or was its member at any point of time. Even the copy of FIR relied, referred to in the grounds of detention, has not been supplied to the petitioner;

(III) That the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind, in that, the detaining authority, while relying upon FIR No.80/2011 i