The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural safeguards and the detenue's right to be provided with the whole material on which the detention order is based in preventive detention cases.

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as detenue) through his nephew, namely Farooq Ahmad Khan seeking quashment of detention order No. 30/PSA of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Ramban, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the detenue has been detained under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as, the PSA) and has been lodged in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, besides seeking writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release him forthwith and pay him compensation.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. It is specific case of the detenue that he is neither involved nor indulged in any illegal or anti-national activity in his whole life and is a peace loving citizen and believes in the sovereignty and integrity of India. The short submission advanced in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of detention passed by the detaining authority is illegal, arbitrary and without any lawful justification as the whole material which has been relied upon by the detaining authority has not been supplied to the detenue with the result that the detenue has been denied of making an effective representation to the respondents. It is stated that the detenue has been served with a copy of the detention order No. 30/PSA of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 and also communication No. DMR/651-53 dated 18.10.2022 along with grounds of detention bearing No. DMR/636-43 dated 18.10.2022. Further case of the detenue is that detaining authority i.e. respondent No. 2 has solely relied upon the dossier submitted by respondent No. 3 vide communication No. CB/DOSSER/22/14159 dated 12.10.2022 as the detenue was legally entitled for the copy of the said dossier but the same was not furnished to him and also the material, on the basis of the which, the said dossier has been framed and the order of detention has been passed has also not been supplied to him.

3. Further contention of the detenue is that detaining authority has passed the order of detention on the basis of police dossier and also number of other DD reports which were never entered in the daily dairy of the Police Station, Banihal regarding so called activities of the detenue which, ultimately, led to the passing of the order of detention by respondent No. 2.

4. It is specific case of the detenue that all the material relied upon by the detaining authority which led to the passing of the order of detention has not been supplied and inaction on the part of the respondents is violative of the constitutional rights of the detenue to make effective representation. It is further averred that although the detaining authority in communication No. DMR/651-53 dated 18.10.2022 has conveyed the detenue that he can file representation before the Government against the order of detention and consequently, the detenue filed a detailed representation to the Government in absence of the material supplied to him, and the said representation although was received by the respondents, yet the respondents have not accorded any consideration, despite lapse of considerable period.

5. Learned counsel submits that even a detailed representation has already been preferred before the Chairman Advisory Board constituted under PSA and the outcome of the same has not been conveyed to the detenue as on date, which vitiates the detention passed against him. He further argues that the detenue is not involved in any criminal activity or any anti national activity as alleged in the dossier and it was incumbent on the part of detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention and detaining authority was under a legal obligation to specify the compelling reasons which led to the passing of the detention order. According to learned counsel for the detenue, it vitiates the order of detention and the order of det