The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds of detention must be specific and not vague, and the complete material forming the basis of the detention order must be provided to enable a meaningful representation, failing which the detention order may be quashed.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Mithal, C.J. - The District Magistrate, Pulwama, on being satisfied, on the basis of the letter dated 30th October 2021 and the material produced along-with it in the form of dossier by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, ordered for the preventive detention of the petitioner-appellant Murtaza Rashid under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. The aforesaid detention order was executed on 31st October 2021 and the petitioner-appellant was taken into preventive custody. The detention order was confirmed on 29th November 2021. The petitioner-appellant was supplied with the detention order, detention notice and the grounds of detention and it is said that the contents of the order of detention and the grounds of detention were duly read over and explained to him in the language he understands.

3. The petitioner-appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court to challenge the aforesaid detention order and to set him free on various grounds.

4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the detention order was considered by the learned Single Judge in the light of the pleadings exchanged between the parties and was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12th May 2022.

5. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings and the arguments advanced by the respective parties considered as many as five points on which the detention order was challenged including the grounds that the detention order is vague; it suffers from non-application of mind as the grounds of detention are nothing but repetition of the police dossier; the detaining authority failed to supply the entire material which formed the basis of his detention; and the petitioner-appellant being an illiterate person was unable to understand the contents of the detention order, the copy of the same was not supplied to him in the language known to him and that no affidavit was filed to substantiate that the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner-appellant.

6. All the above arguments were repelled by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition.

7. The above judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12th May 2022 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant is being assailed by him by filing this appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

8. We have heard Mr. G.N. Shaheen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant and Mr. Asif Maqbool, learned Dy. AG appearing for the respondents.

9. Mr. G.N. Shaheen, learned counsel in assailing the judgment and order of the writ court argued that full and complete material which formed the basis of passing the impugned detention order was never supplied to the petitioner-appellant and thus he was deprived of the opportunity to file an effective representation as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the grounds on which the detention order has been passed are vague and on such vague allegations, it was not possible for the petitioner-appellant to submit a proper representation. Lastly, the petitioner-appellant is an illiterate person who knows only kashmiri language and, as such, serving a copy of the notice of detention, order of detention and the grounds of detention which were in English upon the petitioner-appellant were of no consequence. The petitioner-appellant was deprived of his right to file an appropriate representation.

10. Mr. Asif Maqbool, learned Dy. AG in defence of the impugned judgment and order submitted that the learned Single Judge has recorded a specific finding on each and every point argued on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. There is no perversity in those findings. The judgment is sound and suffers from no error or illegality. The petitioner-appellant was supplied with the copy of the notice of detention,