JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J.-Petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release petitioner from illegal detention by quashing the detention order No. PSA/105 dated 03.05.2021 on the following grounds:

(i) that the impugned detention order is bad and needs its quashment on the ground that the power for fixing the period of detention is not within the domain of respondent No. 02 who has reflected in his detention order that the detenue is detained for a maximum period;

(ii) that the impugned detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier which is totally non-application of the mind of the respondent No. 02 who has acted in a mechanical manner and has not applied his mind while passing of the detention order, as respondent No. 02 has neither reflected its own satisfaction nor has drawn its own grounds indicating that he was satisfied that the detenue was acting in any manner prejudicial and detrimental to the maintenance of public order;

(iii) that the essential material i.e., the copies of the FIRs alleged in the dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police Kathua, recovery memos, statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C have not been supplied to the petitioner who has been prevented from making effective representation against the impugned detention order, as well as, the grounds of detention have not been communicated to the petitioner which is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of Public Safety Act 1978;

(iv) that the petitioner is not conversant with English language and can only understand Hindi/Punjabi, while the detention order and the accompanying grounds of detention were supplied to father of the petitioner in English language which were never explained or translated to the petitioner in Hindi or Punjabi nor any translated script of material was supplied to the petitionerin Hindi/Punjabi, which is denial of right ofthe petitioner of being communicated the grounds, whereby petitioner has failed to make an effective representation against his detention, which is again a violation of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India.

2. Respondent No. 02 (District Magistrate, Kathua) has filed counter affidavit wherein it has been specifically contended, that the preventive detention is aimed at stopping the illegal activities of the individual which otherwise under common law both criminal/civil cannot be stopped; that the individual has created havoc in the society which leads to public disorder, threat to peace and stability and in certain cases also raises alarm bells regarding nation’s unity and integrity; that the petitioner falls under the category of being a threat to the public order, peace and stability in the society, thus, falling under the category of Section 8 of Public Safety Act, 1978; petitioner is a hardcore criminal, has been booked in so many criminal cases, has no respect for law of the land and always believes in breaking the law repeatedly, and, thus, scaring and terrorizing the people of the area; that the action against petitioner under substantive laws from time to time has not proved deterrent and the petitioner has not even mended his criminal mind., hence the order under preventive detention has been filed. It is contended, that the dossier was submitted to him for recommending the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Public Safety Act 1978, as the petitioner is a desperate character and habitual of indulging in acts of crime and has no respect for law of the land; that as per the said dossier, it was recommended that the petitioner has an incorrigible nature and action against him under substantive laws from time to time has not proved deterrent and instead of reforming himself, petitioner has been continuously indulging in criminal activities and has scant respect for l