Detention orders must provide sufficient grounds and material to the detenu for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.DMS/PSA/84/2022 dated 30.08.2022, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby detenu, namely, Zahid Rashid Ganie S/o Abdul Rashid Ganie R/o Methan Chanapora, Srinagar, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of State, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. The grounds of challenge, inter alia, stated and averred by petitioner in the instant writ petition are that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations inasmuch as the cases mentioned in grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention; that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflect and show non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed; the detaining authority has not furnished the material including dossier, relied upon by it, to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel the apprehensions nurtured by detaining authority concerning involvement of detenu in alleged activities; that grounds of detention do not give details or particulars of terrorists to whom detenu is alleged to have met or of those who are alleged to have been given assistance by the detenu.

3. It is being also stated that while detention order was passed on 30.08.2022, but it was executed in March 2023, that is after a delay of more than two years and despite the fact that detenu was all along available for execution during this period, the impugned detention order was not executed.

4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State and that the activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents.

6. There is no plausible, cogent and material ground given by the respondents in their reply affidavit to rebut the contentions of petitioner raised by him in the petition on hand, to justify delay of six months between passing of impugned order of detention dated 30.08.2022, and its execution on 08.03.2023, which is also evident from perusal of Execution Report.

Law in this regard is settled. Reference to this extent is made toSuresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan and others (175) 3 SCC 554; Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu (179) 1 SCC 465. The Supreme Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6683/2022 titled as Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1333, has held that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention and actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu.

When the present case is tested on the touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases, undoub