The detention order must be based on proper application of mind and the detenue must be provided with the translated version of the material forming the basis of the grounds of detention to enable effective representation.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order No.DMR/INDEX/12 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023, issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as “the detaining authority”), whereby petitioner namely Mohd. Ashraf S/o Mohd Hussain, R/o Village Kakora, Tehsil Manjakote District Rajouri (for short ‘the detenue’) has been placed under preventive detention, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. It has been 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; that the statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case as except the detention order and grounds of detention, nothing has been provided to the petitioner or any of his other family member, let alone the translated version of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention, as such, there has been total non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has further been contended that the detaining authority has not mentioned a word with regard to satisfaction drawn by him in the detention order as to how it has come to the conclusion of passing of the detention order.

3. It is further contended that the petitioner has been shown involved in 7 FIRs by the respondents, however, the fact of the matter is in one of the FIRs i.e. FIR No.74/2014, he has earned acquittal on 13.02.2019 from the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and in all other FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention by respondent no.2, challans stand already produced before the different competent courts of law and in all the FIRs the petitioner is on bail and has been facing trials; that aforementioned facts are conspicuous by their absence in the grounds of detention, which apparently shows that the detaining authority is oblivious of the whole facts of the case of the petitioner; that the preventive detention can never be a substitute for the substantial law; that the petitioner is only 8th pass and the material supplied i.e. detention order and grounds of detention documents recorded in English, therefore, he has been prevented from making effective representation to the Government. Lastly, it is prayed that the detention order dated 01.06.2023 be quashed as the same has been passed without giving any consideration to the representation filed by the petitioner on 03.06.2023 to the Financial Commissioner (ACS), Home, who while approving the detention order of the petitioner on 06.06.2023, confirmed the same on 20.06.2023 but has not whispered a word about the said representation.

4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have controverted the averments made in the petition and submitted that the criminal activities of the detenue have created terror and law and order problem in the area. The criminal acts of the detenue include habitual theft/burglary prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and safety/security of lives and properties of the citizens. The detenue is involved in seven cases registered at different Police Stations. 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 in the language he understands. It has also been contended that the grounds raised by the petitioner are factually misconceived and legally untenable. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to support the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record.

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

(I) That th