Preventive detention orders must provide specific grounds for effective representation; similarity in language does not imply non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.15/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama- respondent No.2, whereby Nizam-ud-Din Najar (“the detenue”), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature and the same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate and live link with the detention order. It has been further contended that the safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered.

3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5) For assailing the impugned order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation.

(II) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered nor result thereof has been conveyed to the petitioner.

(III) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner

(IV) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of police dossier.

(V) That the grounds of detention are based upon stale incidents having no proximity and nexus with the impugned order of detention.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7) So far as the first ground of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the same does not hold any merit. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that there are allegations against the petitioner that he provided shelter and logistic support to the terrorists, namely, Musaib Mushtaq Bhat and Muzamil Nazir Rather, who were neutralized by the security forces. It has been alleged that the petitioner was providing every kind of logistic support like shelter, food, information etc. to the above-named terrorists. In the grounds of detention, it has been clearly indicated that even after release of the petitioner on bail in case FIR No.90/2020, he has again developed relations with the te