The judgment established the importance of providing necessary documents to the detenue and the grounds for preventive detention when ordinary law fails to deter criminal activities.

JUDGEMENT

1. Petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has sought the indulgence of this court for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus, writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction with the prayer for quashment of the impugned detention order No. 05 of 2022, dated 13.05.2022 issued by respondent No. 2 for detaining the petitioner u/s 8 (i) (a) of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and further commanding the respondent No. 4 to release the petitioner from Central Jail Kot Bhalwal Jammu on the following grounds:-

(i) that the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned detention order No. 05 of 2022, dated 13.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 8(i)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and direction was issued to the respondent No. 3 to execute the aforesaid impugned detention order and detain the petitioner in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, that only the photostat copy of the dossier herein list of the old criminal cases by adding a fresh FIR No. 75/2022 registered with Police Station R.S. Pura was communicated/supplied to the petitioner on 25.05.2022 by respondent No. 04 in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal Jammu, but the petitioner was not supplied with the impugned detention order alongwith dossier and also was not supplied the grounds of detention, FIR, statement of the witnesses or seizure memo or challan or any other material regarding the registration of criminal cases mentioned in the dossier against the petitioner; that on 27.05.2022 the relation of the petitioner namely Rahul Kumar filed the application before the District Magistrate, Jammu on behalf of the petitioner for issuing of the attested copy of the detention order in respect to petitioner/detenue Sunil Kumar alias Gokal S/o Tarsem Lal Caste Bhagat R/o Chak Aslam Tehsil R.S.Pura District Jammu as the aforesaid petitioner Sunil Kumar is already detained under the PSA and is kept at Central Jail Kot Bhalwal Jammu, but the copy of the impugned detention order is not supplied to the petitioner, the said application was received by the office of the respondent No. 2 on 27.05.2022, but despite receipt of the application for issuance of the attested copy of the detention order, intentionally and deliberately did not supply the same;

(ii) that the impugned detention order and the list of the cases attached with detention order are in the English language, whereas, petitioner can only sign but cannot read or understand the detention order as well as the list of the cases annexed with the impugned order which are in English, neither the alleged detention order was lever read over and explained to him in the Hindi or Dogri language which the petitioner understand, as such, the petitioner is totally ignorant about the alleged impugned detention order which has prevented him from making effective representation in terms of Section 22 (5) read with Section 13 of Public Safety Act.

2. Respondent No. 02(District Magistrate Jammu) the detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been specifically contended, that none of the fundamental, constitutional, statutory or any legal right of petitioner stands violated/ infringed by respondents, as such, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition; the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands, instead has tried to mislead the court, keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the petitioner/detenue his preventive detention has been ordered, whereby the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended, that the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 as per the dossier supplied by SSP Jammu (respondent No. 03) vide his endorsement No. CRB/dossier/2022/03/ DPOJ, dated 02.05.2022 in order to prevent him from indulging in criminal activities which are prejudicial and detrimental to the mai