The central legal point established in the judgment is that the non-consideration of a detenu's representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution, and any inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation renders the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. - Through the medium of instant writ petition, quashment of Order No. DMB/PSA/22 of 2022 dated 25.06.2022, passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Budgam (hereinafter called 'Detaining Authority') in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, in terms whereof the husband of the petitioner namely, Waqar Ahmad Ganie S/O Mohammad Maqboo Ganie R/O Patrigam Chadoora, District, Budgam (for short 'detenue') was ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail Kotbalwal, Jammu has been sought taken in the memo of the petition. The petitioner seeks release of the detenue forthwith from the preventive custody.

2. Though the detention order has been challenged on several grounds, but the main ground taken by the petitioner is that the representation filed against the detention order has not been considered by the respondents till date. It is submitted that because of non-consideration of the representations, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Copy of the representations are annexed with the writ petition as annexure- IV & V.

3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have defended the order of detention, stating therein that the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material available including the dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam, that it is necessary to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 'security of the State' and accordingly placed him under preventive detention. It is stated that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act have strictly been followed and the rights guaranteed to the detenu under the Constitution are protected. It is further submitted that activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory of J&K and, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority, but to order detention of the detenue under the Act. It is also urged that the grounds of detention sufficiently connect the detenue with the activities which are highly prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K, as such, the detention of the detenue is legal.

4. With regard to the allegation of non-consideration of the detenu's representations, it is stated by the respondents that the detenue was informed about his right to make a representation to the detaining authority or the Government. It is stated that the detenue had not made any representation which means that he had no grievance or complaint against his detention.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the petition, annexures appended thereto as also the counter filed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. It has been contended that representations stands already filed by the father of the detenue before the detaining authority as also the Government, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-IV & V to the writ petition along with the postal receipts but despite lapse of more than three months, the representations have not considered by the authorities. However, a categoric objection has been raised in para-C of the counter affidavit that no representation has been filed or received on behalf of the detenue.

7. From the perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that father of the petitioner, Mohammad Maqbool Ganie, had made representations both to the detaining authority and the Government but nothing in respect of the disposal of the said representations has been done by the respondents till date. It is thus, evident that representations filed by the detenue through his father, i.e., petitioner herein in the month of July, 2022, have not been considered by the respondents so far.

8. It appears that representations dated 08.07.2022, have been filed against the dete