The judgment established the importance of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing a detention order, the limited scope of scrutiny under Article 226, and the distinction between preventive and punitive detention.

JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s Writ Petition being WP(Crl) No.59/2022 titled ‘Saqib Hussain Mir v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors’ seeking quashment of detention order No. 97/DM/Doda/PSA/2022 dated 07.07.2022, issued by Respondent No.2-the District Magistrate, Doda (hereinafter to be referred to as the Detaining Authority), was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the judgment impugned dated 25.05.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the following grounds:

a. That the impugned judgment is bad in the eyes of law and hence, deserves to be set-aside.

b. That the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench is against the facts and record, hence, deserves to be set aside.

c. That the appellant has challenged the impugned detention on the ground that the detention order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the law and facts of the case.

d. That the appellant is also taking ground that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention.

e. That from the perusal of the ground of detention as well as dossier submitted by the SSP Doda it is explicit that the same are verbatim to each other which shows that the detaining authority has not applied its mind and the detention order is required to be set aside. However, the Hon’ble Single Bench has held that the grounds of detention and the dossier submitted by the SSP are not verbatim of each other, which finding is against the record, hence, the impugned judgment and the detention order deserves to be set aside.

f. That the grounds taken by the appellant in the habeas corpus petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge has not been dealt in accordance with law and the record, hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

g. That the appellant reserves their right to raise any other additional ground at the time of arguments.”

3. The appellant/writ petitioner has challenged detention order No. 97/DM/Doda/PSA/2022 dated 07.07.2022, foisted upon him by respondent No.2-the District Magistrate, Doda before the writ Court by filing petition bearing WP(Crl.) No.59/2022 being the same in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13(1) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and also the same is alleged to have been passed arbitrarily and in a mala fide manner without application of mind.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has passed the detention order in a very rush manner which can be reflected from the order itself; that the dossier is the replica of grounds of detention. Moreover, the detune has been prevented in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention within time as the detaining authority has not supplied the detenue the whole material relied upon by it. Furthermore, it is stated that the appellant/writ petitioner has not committed any offence nor is he involved in the commission of any offence under the Public Safety Act, which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, but the respondents without the application of mind and without considering the material on record had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law and as such the same is liable to be quashed. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the detenue that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Public Safety Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has been provided only the grounds of detention and Dossier along with the order of respondent No.2 which were not understood by the appellant as he is only 9th