JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.-The order no.80/DMS/PSA/2021 dated 08.05.2021, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian (for brevity “detaining authority”) placing one, Altaf Paswal S/o Mohd Hussain Paswal R/o Nasserpora Mukami Dunaroo District Shopian (for short “detenu”) under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the preservation of forest wealth, has been precisely challenged on the following grounds:

i) that detenu was not provided the grounds of detention including copies of the FIRs, copies of final reports produced in the courts and other relevant material, as such detenu could not make an effective representation before the authorities;

ii) that detaining authority did not apprise detenu of his right to make a representation against his detention order neither he was told before whom the representation was to be made and the material was not supplied in Gojri or Urdu language to detenu, as such, no effective representation could be made against the detention;

iii) That detaining authority has acted on the Dossier supplied by Forest Authorities and copy of Dossier supplied to detaining authority by Divisional Forest Officer, Shopian, was not provided to the detenu, as such the detenu could not make effective representation against his detention;

iv) That allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of detaining authority and no prudent common man can make effective representation on the basis of such ambiguous allegations. The detaining authority has not applied his mind but acted as post office and slapped the detention upon the detenu;

v) that there is no nexus between the alleged acts done and slapping of the detention order;

vi) that detention order was not executed as per law and detention order reportedly was not approved, confirmed within the stipulated time period which renders the detention Illegal

vii) that illegal, unjustified detention order is clearly misuse of authority by detaining authority which has been vested upon him by law and no due care diligence has been exercised by detaining authority before passing detention order;

viii) that detenu has small six children and ailing wife and nobody to look after his family as such his detention amounts to punishing his minor children and his wife.

2. Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit, in which it is submitted by them that detenu is involved in timber smuggling by cutting green trees, instigating his associates to adopt the same trade and transporting the illicit material. The detaining authority has, in its affidavit, justified the grounds of detention as well as the impugned detention order while denying the allegation of non-supply of relevant material to the detenu. To substantiate their case, the respondents have produced the detention record.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

4. The first argument put forth by learned counsel for petitioner is that impugned order of detention is unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law inasmuch as detaining authority has not followed the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that detenu has read up to primary level and can understand Gojri and Urdu language only but the grounds of detention and other material was not served to detenu in Urdu or Gojri language, as such, detenu could not make effective representation against detention order and that detenu was not communicated grounds of detention, dossier, FIRs, statement of witnesses, material collected during investigation, and the material considered in framing grounds of detention

In view of above submission, I have gone through the detention record produced by learned counsel for respondents. Perusal thereof reveals that the material relied upon by detaining authority has been furnished to detenu at the time of execution of the detentio