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 petitioner has further argued the person should specifically file an affidavit who has served the order of detention and the relevant record to the detenue and such satisfaction has also not been arrived and accordingly, the order impugned cannot sustain the test of law.

6. It has been further argued that no subjective satisfaction has been arrived to the extent that the ordinary law was not sufficient to deal with the detenue and, accordingly, the respondents were left with no other option but to resort to the provisions of the PSA for detaining the detenue. In absence of any such satisfaction that the ordinary law was not sufficient to deal with the detenue, the order impugned cannot sustain the test of law.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner, during the intervening period when he was bailed out, never indulged in any activity which is prejudicial to the state and mere apprehension of breach of law to maintain the public disorder is not sufficient to pass the order of detention.

8. Mr. K S Johal, learned senior counsel, has argued that mere apprehension of breach of law or to indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of the state, are no sufficient reasons to pass the order of detention. Subjective satisfaction has to be arrived at while passing the detention order and the details thereof need to specified/rejected, which are prejudicial to the interest of the state and the action of the detenue is extraneous to the law in force.

9. He has emphasized that during intervening seven months’ period, he has not done anything which is prejudicial to the interest of the state and can be basis for passing of order of detention.

10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the language in which he understands the grounds have not been conveyed to him and on this ground also, the impugned order cannot sustain the test of law.

11. He further contends that he has been denied of effective representation and the material has not been supplied to him in the language in which he understands. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there was no material or action of the detenue which falls within the realm of public disorder and can be basis for issuing the order of detention.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the material which has been referred in page 119 of the petition by way of general diary details is not sufficient to the extent which falls within the realm of the public disorder and could be basis for detaining the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the above material pertains to General Diary dated 15.07.2022 and the said material ought to have been reflected in the dossier or whether the authorities have considered that material while passing orde