The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing the detenue with all relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority and the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s Writ Petition i.e. WP(Crl) No.15/2023 titled ‘Ghulam Nabi v. UT of J&K and Ors.’ seeking quashment of detention order No.23/PSA of 2022 dated 03.10.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Ramban, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2023, inter alia, on the following grounds:

a. That the bare perusal of the judgment impugned makes it amply clear that the same has been passed by the writ court in a casual and mechanical manner without proper appreciation to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. On this ground alone, the judgment impugned required to be set aside and writ petition be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.

b. That it was brought to the kind notice of the writ court that the order of detention is based on the dossier forwarded to the respondent no.2 by the respondent no.3 where by the reference has been made alleged three (03) FIRs out of which one FIR’s at Police Station Banihal and Two FIRs at Police Station Ramsoo. The precise status of these FIRs were not considered by the detaining authority in the right perspective. The respondents had failed to take into consideration the fact that all these FIRs are stale in nature. Moreover, the petitioner has been bailed out in all these FIRs which matter has again not been taken into consideration while passing the detention order. All these facts are overlooked in the right manner.

c. That the learned writ court failed to appreciate that the provision for execution of detention order as provided under Section 9 of the J&K Public Safety Act has not been complied with the order of detention was never been read over and explained to the appellant in the language in the language that he understands. Furthermore the incriminating documents on the basis of which the order of detention has been passed were not supplied to the appellant. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in the execution report dated 06.10.2022 filed by the respondent no.2 along with objections to the writ petition.

d. That the learned writ court failed to appreciate that the ground of detention are verbatim of the dossier which clearly reflects the non application of mind of respondent no.2 but the learned writ court did not appreciate the same and rejected the contention of the appellant.

e. That the learned writ court did not appreciate that the translated version of documents has not been provided to the detenue and were never explained in the language which he understands. On this ground alone the judgment impugned deserves to be satisfied.

f. That the learned writ court erred in holding that the detenue has not availed the alternate remedy of filing review before the advisory board whereas the fact remains that he has not been provided with the translated version of the incriminating documents relied upon by the detaining authority, once he is not in possession of relevant documents there is no question of filing of any representation before the advisory board.

g. That the learned writ court failed to appreciate that the order of detention has been passed in a mechanical manner and did not meet the requirement of Public Safety Act.

h. That the Hon’ble writ court failed to appreciate that mere apprehension of breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of provision of law to detain the appellant. Mere surmise of the detaining authority especially when there are no reports of unrest since the detenue was released on bail cannot be subverted to restrict and hamper the personal liberty of the accused by way of order of detention passed against him. The order impugned, therefore, cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.

i. That the learned writ court further overlooked the fact and did not appreciate that the order of