JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged Order No. 12 PSA of 2022, dated 09.09.2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been detained under the Jammu & Kashmir PUBLIC SAFETY ACT , 1978, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order of detention is being assailed by the petitioner through his wife Surbhi Rajput.

2. The detention order has been questioned by the detenu on the grounds that; (i) the same has been passed without any application of mind as there was no cogent and compelling reason for passing the order of detention; (ii) the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier as there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority; (iii) the detenu has not been informed of his right to make a representation against this detention; (iv) the grounds of detention are vague, uncertain, untrue and ambiguous in all material particulars, therefore, the detention is unsustainable; (v) all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been provided to the detenu and this has resulted in an infraction of constitutional and statutory safeguards as provided to him under the constitution as well as PUBLIC SAFETY ACT .

3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit as well as produced the detention record. The respondents submit that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees as provided to the detenu have been fulfilled and complied with. It is also submitted that in compliance to the District Magistrate's order, the warrant was executed by the Executing Officer-PSI Maroof Ahmed No. PID EXJ-No. (196260) of Police Station, Miran Sahib, who has read over and explained the warrant and grounds of detention to the detenu in the language, he understands. The detenu was also informed of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority as well as the Government against his detention. The detenu has been provided all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority along with translated copies of the same were provided to him. He, however, has not made any representation against his detention.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the representation against his detention made to the Secretary, Home Department on 10.11.2022. The contention of the petitioner is that the representation made by him has not been considered till date. It is apparent from the reply as well as record that the representation made by the petitioner has neither been considered nor disposed of. In view of the clear averments supported by documentary evidence and in the absence of rebuttal by the detaining authority, this Court is left with no other option but to accept the contention of detenue that his representation has not been considered by the detaining authority.

6. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides specific protections to under trials and detainees in India. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

"When any person is detained in pursuant of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the Authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and afford him an earliest opportunit