JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the Order No.113/DMB/PSA(F)/2021 dated 26.03.2021, having been passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby the detenu, namely, Farhat Mir S/o Nazir Mir R/o Mundgi, Tehsil Dangerpora, District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention to prevent the detenu from smuggling timber and has been directed to be lodged in Central Jail, Kotebhulwal, Jammu.

2. It is contended in this writ petition that the detenu was arrested without any justification and cause and was detained in terms of impugned order or detention.

3. The respondents have filed the Reply Affidavit in opposition to the petition, wherein it is insisted that the detenu is involved in the timber smuggling by chopping down of the trees, encroaching the forest land, setting the forest fires and cultivating the profitable crop on the forest land.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and can only be defended in a court of law. The learned senior counsel has also averred that the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenu. He has also contended that the authorities with preconceived mind sought the detention order to be passed by the respondent no.2 without applying his mind and without any due procedure and that impugned detention order has been seemingly passed upon the dictates of police authorities. It is also stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself, which is a prerequisite for him before passing the detention order. It is also the assertion of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the detenu was not informed that within what timeframe he can make a representation against the detention order to the detaining authority to respondent no.1, which is in total violation of the rights of the detenu as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is stated to have not been produced before the Advisory Board and no opportunity of being heard has been ever provided to detenu by the said Advisory Board nor opined about his continuous detention. It is also submitted that the grounds of detention were never explained to the detenu in vernacular.

5. Heard and considered.

6. Before paying heed to the present case, it would be appropriate to say that the right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with the procedures established under law, and the procedure, as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR SC 597, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing the trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case the prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such a person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given the adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce the evidence in his defence.

7. It is to be seen that framers of the Constitution of India have incorporated Article 22 in the Constitution of India, so as to leave room for placing a person under the preventive detention without a formal charge and trial, and without such a person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonm