JUDGMENT :

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition is calling in question the proceedings and order of detention dated 31.08.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 under provisions of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of detention and also the grounds of detention which are impugned in present petition and have been passed allegedly without application of mind, arbitrarily and by misusing the power vested in detaining authority.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. K S Johal, Senior Advocate, has argued that the order impugned is total non-application of mind and before issuing the order impugned, the subjective satisfaction has not been arrived at by the detaining authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that order of detention is reproduction of the grounds urged in the dossier per verbatim which clearly shows that no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the detaining authority before issuing the order of detention and, thus, the same cannot sustain the test of law.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petition