JUDGMENT :

1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of order No.03/DMB/PSA of 2022 dated 07.04.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora (for brevity “Detaining Authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Mohammad Saleem Parray son of Mohammad Ramzan Parray resident of Khos Mohalla Hajin Tehsil Hajin District Bandipora (for short “the detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the dossier. It has been further contended that the Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case as whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue and that there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been urged that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I) That the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier, which shows that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention which is a pre-requisite for passing an order of detention;

(II) That the detenue’s right of making an effective representation against his detention has been violated as the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, has not been supplied to him.

(III) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order of detention, inasmuch as, it was not alive to the fact that the detenu had been enlarged on bail in certain criminal cases registered against him as the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention

(IV) That the impugned order of detention is based upon stale incidents having no proximate link to the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to justify the passing of the order impugned by contending that the detenue was a habitual criminal, inasmuch as there were various FIRs pending against him and on this basis, the Detaining Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention as there was every likelihood of the detenue indulging in similar activities. It has been further contended that all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were, provided to the detenue and in token of having received the same, the detenue has signed the receipt. It is also urged that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the detenue in the language understood by him.

7. While going through the detention records, as produced, the first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner gets support from the material on record. The grounds of detention are replica of dossier with interplay of some words here and there, which exhibit