Judgment

Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The petitioner through the medium of this petition filed through his father, has questioned the detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/55/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar (respondent no.2 herein) by virtue of which the petitioner has been detained in preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short hereinafter “Act”) in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State (now Union Territory).

2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner was arrested by the security forces without any justification and was detained under the order impugned. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned on the ground inter-alia that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained, are vague and mere assertions of detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations made in the detention order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had already forwarded representation to the Government but the same was not considered. He was already in custody and being implicated in serious case, there was no likelihood of detenue being granted bail in near future but the same fact has not been mentioned in the detention order. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not well informed within what time he can make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government and that the grounds of detention were never explained to him in his language.

3. Respondents have filed response in which it has been stated that the petitioner was detained pursuant to the order of detention impugned in the petition and all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. In compliance to the detention order, warrant was accordingly executed by the Executing Officer, ASI Mohammad Majnoon of Police Station Rajbagh and the petitioner was handed over to the Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, for lodgment. It is submitted that the contents of the detention order, warrant and the grounds of detention, were read over and explained to the petitioner in the language which he fully understood and in lieu whereof the petitioner subscribed his signatures on the execution report/order marked as Mark “A”. The petitioner was well informed about his right of making representation to the detaining authority or to Government against his detention. The petitioner despite having received the aforesaid entire material, has not chosen to make any representation against his detention. Further, respondents have submitted that in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the case of the petitioner was referred to Advisory Board of the State for its opinion. The Advisory Board, has opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. After the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order No. Home/PB-V/1804 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, confirmed the order of detention dated 08.08.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, against the petitioner. It has also been stated by the respondents that the petitioner was involved in serious offence in case FIR No.73/2018 and because of his illegal activities, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Act.

4. Mr.Syed Musaib, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority for detaining the petitioner under preventive custody were not handed over to the petitioner so as to enable him to make an effective representation before the detaining authority or to the Government. He has drawn our attention to the execution report marked as Annexure R1 annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He has also reiterated that petitioner was already in custody at the time of passing of detenti