The verbatim reproduction of police dossier in detention grounds indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, rendering the preventive detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. Through the medium of instant petition quashment of detention order bearing No. 28/DMB/PSA/2021, dated 17.11.2021, (hereinafter for short the 'impugned order') passed against the detenu, namely, Rameez Ahmad Lone, is being sought for by the petitioner as also a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release.

2. It is being stated in the petition that the detenu is a law abiding and peace-loving citizen and has never been involved in any subversive activity prejudicial to the public order or Security of the State. The detenu is stated to have been arrested on 09th of October, 2021 on the allegations of having developed contacts with various terrorist/ secessionist organization to carry out the activities of secessionism. and terrorism and was kept in lockup firstly in Police Station, Bomai and then in SOG Camp Sopore, and thereafter placed under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention on 17th of November, 2021 and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu.

3. The impugned order is being challenged on the grounds urged in the petition.

4. On the other hand, respondents, in their reply affidavit filed, resist and controvert the contentions raised and grounds urged by the petitioner in the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

5. While dealing with the contention/ground of challenge urged by learned counsel for petitioner concerning the grounds of detention being verbatim of dossier, has taken this Court to have a glimpse of detention record, made available by learned counsel for respondents, a perusal thereof unveils that the grounds of detention are the ditto copy of the dossier. The detaining authority may have got inputs from different agencies, including Superintendent of Police of concerned District/area, but responsibility to formulate the grounds of detention, however, exclusively rests with the detaining authority. It is the detaining authority, who has to go through the reports and other inputs received by it from concerned police and other agencies and on such perusal arrive at a subjective satisfaction that a person is to be placed under the preventive detention. It is, thus, for the detaining authority to formulate the grounds of detention and satisfy itself that the grounds of detention so formulated warrant passing of the order of preventive detention. This Court as regards the verbatim reproduction of the dossier in grounds of detention, in the case of Naba Lone v. District Magistrate 1988 SLJ 300 , while dealing with a case where a similar situation arose, has observed :

"The grounds of detention supplied to the detenue is a copy of the police dossier, which was placed before the District Magistrate for his subjective satisfaction in order to detain the detenue. This shows total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. He has dittoed the Police direction without applying his mind to the facts of the case."

This Court again in the case of Noor-ud-Din Shah v. State of J&K & Ors. 1989 SLJ 1, quashed detention order, which was only a reproduction of dossier supplied to detaining authority on the ground that it amounted to non-application of mind. The Court observed :

"I have thoroughly by examined the dossier submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, to District Magistrate, Anantnag as also the grounds of detention formulated by the latter for the detention of the detenue in the present case, and I find the said grounds of detention are nothing but the verbatim reproduction of the dossier as forwarded by the Police to the detaining authority. He has only changed the number of paragraphs, trying in vain to give it a different shape. This is in fact a case of non-application of mind on the detaining authority. Without applying his own mind to the facts of the case. He has acted as an agent of the police. It was his legal duty to find out if the allegations levelled by the police against the de