The detaining authority must independently apply its mind and ensure the consideration of the petitioner's representation, and the detention order must not be a verbatim reproduction of the dossier contents.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through his father seeking quashing of the order of detention bearing No. 06 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 8(1)(a) of the Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”) on the following grounds:

(a) That the order of detention was passed on 10.05.2023 but the same was implemented on 07.06.2023 when the petitioner surrendered before the SHO Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu in presence of the respectable persons of the area including the Municipal Corporator, Gujjar Nagar, Jammu and Advocate Varun.

(b) That earlier in the year, 2017 also, the petitioner was recommended for detention under the Act but later, the District Administration decided not to detain the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to face the trials in the criminal cases, in which he had been booked for substantive offences.

(c) That the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal as most of the documents forming part of the dossier/grounds of detention provided to the petitioner were not legible.

(d) That the petitioner had submitted the representation against the order of detention but the same was not decided by the respondents.

(e) That the petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 63/2017 of Police Station, Nowabad and FIR No. 38/2022 of Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu but the respondent No. 3 did not provide the requisite information to the Detaining Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 and as such, it has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2, stating therein that the order of detention has been issued on the basis of activities of the petitioner, which were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging again in such activities. It is further stated that all the statutory safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as provisions contained in the Act were meticulously followed, while issuing as well as executing the order of detention. It is further averred that the petitioner is a history-sheeter of Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu and a dreaded criminal, desperate character, who habitually indulges in acts of violence such as attempt to murder, assault, carrying illegal arm/ammunition, extortion etc. It is further stated that the petitioner was found to be involved in 12 different cases and the ordinary criminal law when failed to mend him and his tendency to disturb the public order, the Detaining Authority was compelled to detain him under the Act. The acquittal, discharge or bail in one or more of the cases, has no effect on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

3. Mr. S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress that the judgments of acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner in FIR No. 63/2017 of Police Station, Nowabad and case FIR No. 38/2022 of Police Station, Peer Mitha, were not brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority by the respondent No. 3 and as such, it prevented the Detaining Authority from deriving the subjective satisfaction while issuing the order of detention. He further argued that despite the fact that the representation was made to the respondents, the same was not decided by them resulting into violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as provisions contained in the Act.

4. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy.AG, appearing for the respondents, has vehemently argued that if the legible copies of the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority while issuing the order of detention were not provided to the petitioner, he was expected to approach the respondents for providing the legible copies. He laid much stress that the ground raised by the petitioner in respect of illegible copies is, in fact, an afterthought as there is no such whisper made