The main legal point established is the distinction between law and order and public order, emphasizing that preventive detention should be reserved for emergent situations affecting public order.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. Petitioner, through his father, Mohd Yousuf Mian, has assailed his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla (the Detaining Authority) vide Order No. 05/DMB/PSA/23 dated 07.02.2023 (the impugned order), whereby the petitioner-Iqbal Ahmad Mian S/O Mohd Yousuf Mian R/O Mian Mohalla, Tehsil Pattan, District Baramulla (“the detenue”) has been put under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, it is necessary to notice the material facts on the basis of which the detaining authority has derived its subjective satisfaction for placing the detenue under the preventive detention.

3. The grounds of detention which have been made basis by the Detaining Authority for the preventive detention of the detenue is the Police dossier dated nil which reveals that the detenue is involved in different anti social activities including cheating the general public particularly unemployed youth on the pretext of providing Government jobs. The detenue has swindled lacs of Rupees from gullible youth by issuing fake/forged appointment orders. A case bearing FIR No. 11/2023 stands registered by the police about the illegal activities of the detenue and during the course of investigation, the offences under Sections 420, 384, 506 IPC were established against the detenue and his associate leading to the detenue. The detenue is indulging in cheating innocent people on the pretext of providing government jobs and the nature of the activities of the detenue disturbs the public order. The normal law in the case of detenue will not be sufficient to deter him from indulging in such activities and his detention under PSA had thus become imperative.

4. It is on the basis of these allegations, the Detaining Authority arrived at subjective satisfaction to detain the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, as such, by invoking Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act passed the impugned detention order and directed his lodgment in Central Jail Kotebhalwal, Jammu.

5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the detenue has been found indulging in different anti-social and criminal activities which include cheating the general public , particularly un-employed youth on the pretext of providing government jobs in order to extort money from them. The detenue has been found involved in case FIR No. 17/2023 registered in Police Station Pattan. It is also stated that the activities of the detenue were found prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, accordingly, police concerned prepared a dossier and that normal law of the land is not sufficient to deter him from indulging in the nefarious activities and forwarded dossier along with record to the Detaining Authority with the recommendations to order preventive detention of the detenue.

6. Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, learned GA, has produced the scanned copy of the detention record.

7. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner inter-alia on the following grounds:

“(I) That the Detaining Authority has made the basis for the detention of the detenue, the sole FIR No. 17/2023 registered by Police Station, Pattan under Section 420, 384, 506 IPC, if found proved against the detenue, would constitute a criminal act and cannot be treated as an act which will disturb the peace and public order.

(II) That the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction for putting the detenue under preventive detention was not supplied to the detenue and was not also explained him to the language, which he could understand, meaning, thereby that the detenue has been prevented from making an effective representation to the Detaining Authority or the Government against his detention.

(III) That the grounds of detention a