JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

Through the medium of instant, petitioner has challenged the veracity and legality of the detention order No.82/DMS/PSA/2021 dated 08.05.2021 (for brevity “the impugned order), passed by District Magistrate, Shopian (respondent No.2), in terms whereof, he has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the preservation of the forest wealth of District Shopian/Pulwama and has been directed to be lodged in District Jail, Kathua. The said order has been passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers under Section 8(1)(a-I) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. The impugned order has been, inter alia, 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, inasmuch as the detenue was not supplied the translated version of the material which formed the basis of the grounds of detention;

(ii) That the 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 and that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself and has relied on the police dossier;

3. Respondents have resisted the petition by filing a reply thereto. In their counter affidavit it is being contended that the respondents have followed all the constitutional and statutory safeguards envisaged under law while passing the impugned order of detention. It is being averred that the petitioner is a habitual nocturnal timber smuggler and along with his associates has ruined the forest wealth of the district/state for last many years. It is being further contended that these activities of the detenue are causing damage not only to the state exchequer but also adversely affecting the environment and damaging the ecological balance of the area and in order to restrain the detenue from indulging in such activities, he was detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act. To support their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. 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 is not a literate persons and cannot understand English language but the grounds of detention and other material was not served to detenu in Urdu or Kashmiri 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.

6. Perusal of the detenue record transpires that the material relied upon by detaining authority has been furnished to detenu at the time of execution of the detention. It is evident from detention record that detenue, at the time of execution of detention order, has been handed over all what has been referred to in grounds of detention by detaining authority, so as to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention. Thus, there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, as is also stated in the petition, that detenue has not been provided grounds of detention, copies of FIRs etc. As is also gatherable from the detention record, all that was required including the material relied upon by detaining authority has been provid