The detaining authority is obligated to supply the detenu with all documents and materials forming the basis for detention, as emphasized by relevant judgments.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the detenu, Umar Nawaz Khan, through his father, Shah Nawaz Khan, against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2022, delivered by a Single Bench of this Court in WP Crl No. 255/2021 in which the detention Order No. DMS/PSA/56 of 2021 dated 18.10.2021, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, was challenged. By virtue of the said detention order, the appellant/detenu was placed under preventive detention in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The said appellant/detenu was ordered to be lodged at Central Jail, Srinagar.

2. The detention order was executed on 21.10.2021. At that point of time, admittedly, the detenu was already facing trial in FIR No. 61/2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 336, 332 and 353 RPC, registered at Police Station Shaheed Gunj. Accordingly, the Police concerned prepared a dossier and while finding that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State and normal law of land is not sufficient to deter the detenu from his nefarious activities, therefore the detaining authority recommended to order preventive detention of the detenu.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said Habeas Corpus Petition after examining the contentions of the parties and arriving at the conclusion that none of the detenu's constitutional and statutory rights had been violated by passing of the detention order in question.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/detenu has raised primarily three issues before us questioning the validity of the detention.

5. The first point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that non-supply of relevant material/documents vitiates the detention order. In this context, it was the case of the appellant that no documents at all were supplied to the appellant/detenu. The non-supply of relevant documents seriously undermines the capacity of a detenu to make an effective representation against the detention and that in itself would be a ground to declare the detention order void. This right flows from the Constitution of India. In support, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) 3 SCC 440, the Apex Court, relying on its earlier Judgments in Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCR 81; Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531".

6. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was based on non-application of mind of the detaining authority with reference to having mentioned in the order of detention and grounds of detention that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to peace and tranquility, while as in the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the state.

7. The third point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was based on vagueness in grounds of detention.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Sajjad Ashraf, learned GA, defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as also the detention order and responded to each of the points.

9. With regard to the plea of non-supply of material/documents, Mr. Sajjad Ashraf, learned GA, placed before us the record pertaining to the detention. Ongoing through the same, we find that there is a signed document said to have been signed by the detenu, Umar Nawaz Khan alias Gori, in English. The said document is titled "Receipt of Detention Papers". The text of the said document is set out herein below:

'...In compliance to the J&K, Kashmir/District Magistrate, Srinagar Order No. DMS/PSA/56/2021, dated 18.10.2021 the grounds of detention have been served to the detenu namely Umar Nawaz Khan S/o Shahnzwaz Khan R/o Zaindar Mohalla Srinagar at the time of execution of PSA warrant today on 21.10.2021 consisting of Four leaves. The contents of the detention warrant/grounds of detention have been read over and explained