The judgment emphasizes the importance of preventive detention to safeguard the security of the state and the need for clear grounds and information for the detenue to make representation.

JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J

1. This intra-court appeal (LPA under clause 12 of Letters Patent) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 rendered by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in WP(Crl) No. 755/2022 titled Muntizir Ahmad Mir V. Union Territory of J&K & Ors., whereby, petition filed by the appellant for quashing his detention order bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (District Magistrate Pulwama) under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 has been dismissed.

2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2023, appellant has assailed it’s legality, propriety and correctness, and has sought it’s setting aside/quashment on the following grounds:-

(i) that the Ld. Single Bench of this court has dismissed writ petition of appellant/detenue bearing No. WP (Crl) No. 755/2022 titled Muntizir Ahmad Mir V. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023 without any legal justification, without appreciating the grounds agitated in the writ petition and by incorrect appreciation of law, as the respondents in their counter affidavit have not specifically repelled the averments and grounds of challenge;

(ii) that whole of the material that has been relied upon by the detaining authority while framing the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner, the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could have been made, the petitioner has not been informed about his right of making a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the government, the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered; (iii) that the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority while passing detention order was without any basis and also on non-existent grounds, the detention order is outcome of mala-fides and passed in colourable exercise of the powers, whereby, detenue’s right to make representation to the detaining authority has been denied, the allegations against the detenue being stale and having been no immediate proximity has not been considered by the Single Bench;

(iv) that as per law the representation has not been considered at all, there is no mention of the date of rejection which is deliberate because the respondent Govt. as per law is under an obligation to consider and decide the representation without delay, the confirmation of detention order by the Advisory Board cannot be a ground to reject the representation of the detenue;

3. The writ court upon hearing both the sides and going through the detention record came to the conclusion that the detention of appellant/detenue in terms of impugned judgment/order dated 31.03.2023 was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of state and that all the procedural safeguards including providing of relevant material to appellant/detenue enabling him to make an effective representation have been adhered to. The writ court did not agree with the contentions of appellant/detenue that the impugned order of detention bearing No. 81/DMP/PSA/22 dated 03.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 was bad and legally unsustainable on the premises, that the whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority while framing grounds of detention have not been supplied to the petitioner/detenue, that the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which no effective representation could have been made by petitioner/detenue, that the petitioner/detenue has not been informed about his right of making representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government, and the representation of petitioner/detenue against impugned detention order has not been considered.

4. Sh. M. Ayoub Bhat Ld. Counsel for appellant/detenue has sought the setting aside/quashment of the impugned judgment and order passed by the writ court dated 3