IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention must be justified by clear and proximate grounds related to public order, and a writ petition can be filed by a relative on behalf of a detenue if the detenue is unavailable.

JUDGMENT :

(Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.) :

1. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated: 12.07.2022 passed in WP (Crl) No. 02/2022 by Learned Single Judge. The facts and circumstances of the above said appeals are identical in nature, therefore, both are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Aggrieved of the order/judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Writ Court (hereinafter called 'impugned Judgment') appellant Mohd. Yousuf and his brother Mohd. Aslam filed a joint Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 69/2022) seeking setting aside the impugned judgment. However, later the appellant Mohd. Aslam moved an application (CM No. 4389/2022) seeking withdrawal from the appeal and vide interim order dated: 25.07.2022 passed by this Bench the appeal to his extent, was dismissed as withdrawn on his behalf with liberty to file a separate fresh appeal after seeking leave of this Court to file the same.

3. In LPA No. 69/2022 it has been prayed to set aside the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by Learned Single Bench whereby petition for quashment of detention order was dismissed with a further direction to the Director Anti Corruption Bureau Union Territory of J&K to enquire into the matter for having obtained documents not by legitimate means. It has been further prayed to quash the detention Order No. 02/2022, dated 11.01.2022 which was subject matter of writ petition.

4. In LPA No. 76/2022 the appellant seeks setting aside the directions passed by Learned Single Judge to the Anti Corruption Bureau of UT of J&K to enquire into the issue of procurement of the order of detention and communications addressed to the petitioner in the writ petition and to the Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department with regard to alleged connivance of the officials of the respondents and the appellant who had filed the petition on behalf of his brother. It has been further prayed to set aside/expunge/remove the observations made in the judgment against the appellant, being unwarranted, unjustified and uncalled for and also being violative of principles of natural justice.

5. Factual Matrix of the case is that one Mohd. Yousuf @ Shama S/o Faqar Din R/o Village Narwal Bala Jammu, (hereinafter called appellant Mohd. Yousuf) was ordered to be detained in terms of Section 8(1) (a) of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, by the District Magistrate Jammu (hereinafter called 'Detaining Authority' for short) vide his Order No. 2 of 2022 dated 11.01.2022 (hereinafter called 'detention order').

6. Before the Order could be executed, the appellant Mohd. Yousuf filed criminal writ petition before this court through his brother namely Mohd. Aslam seeking quashment of the detention order passed by detaining authority. WP (Crl) No. 02/2022 was decided by the Writ Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2022 and rejected the plea raised by the appellant for quashment of the detention order mainly on the points that a person whose preventive detention has been ordered, without execution of the same, cannot file the petition that too through a stranger as he himself is required to file the same. The learned Single Judge held that the petition filed by the brother of the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari' cannot be maintained on behalf of the person who has been ordered to be detained and who was evading the process of law, without being properly authorized. It was also observed by the writ Court that the detention order and communication dated 11.01.2022 addressed to the person whose detention ordered and the Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department by the Detaining Authority had been placed on record by the brother of the petitioner and the Court is at a loss as to how the order of detention as also communication landed in the hands of the petitioner or his brother without there being any execution of the said detention order as there was no pleading with regard to the fact as to how the detention order and other communication were