The detaining authority must apply subjective satisfaction and prepare grounds of detention independently, considering the potential impact of the detenu's activities on 'law and order', 'public order', and 'security of the State'.

JUDGMENT

1. In this petition, the order of detention, bearing no.DMS/PSA/43/2022 dated 15.04.2022, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar (respondent no.2), placing Faizan Akther Bhat S/o Akther Hussain Bhat resident of Gousia Colony Khanyar, Srinagar, (for short 'detenu') under preventive detention and directing his lodgement in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, is sought to be quashed on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. The case set up by petitioner in the petition is that detenu was arrested by the Police in the year 2021 and was taken to Police Station Khanyar, where he was detained illegally and thereafter detained under Public Safety Act vide order dated 15.04.2021. The detenu has already been admitted to bail in case FIR No. 38/2020 which fact has not been reflected in the grounds of detention which shows non-application of mind on part of detaining authority.

3. It is also stated that detaining authority while passing impugned detention order has mentioned that detenu is being placed under preventive detention as his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order whereas in the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as security of the UT of J&K, which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority because detention order is to be issued either for public order or for security of the State but not under both the heads. It is also averred that the detenu is an illiterate person and grounds of detention, served upon him, are based on hyper technical language, which is neither understandable nor communicable to detenu. It is also stated that the material relied upon by detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention.

4. Reply has been filed by respondents, vehemently resisting the petition. The detention record has also been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents to substantiate the averments made in the Reply.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the petition, WP(Crl) no.46/2021, has become infructuous in view of issuance of subsequent order of detention, impugned herein. He states that grounds of detention have been prepared on both expressions, viz. 'prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K', which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. He has also urged that while earlier detention order was in operation, the impugned order of detention came to be passed by the detaining authority, which shows and reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority inasmuch as the subsequent order of detention, impugned herein, has been passed on the same grounds which were made use of while passing earlier order of detention, which also amounts to violation of guaranteed rights of the detenu. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on Kshetra Gogoi v. State of Assam, 1970 SCC (Cri) 6; Masood Alam etc. v. Union of India and others, 1973 (1) SCC 551; and Ghotka Hembram v. State of West Bengal, 1974 (3) SCC 401.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has stated that detention order has been passed after deriving subjective satisfiaction in the matter and that grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by detaining authority came to be furnished to detenu well within statutory period and therefore, respondents have complied with all statutory, constitutional provisions and followed all requisite formalities and have not violated any of them.

8. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be appropriate to say that the Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudi