Timely consideration of representations in preventive detention cases is essential to uphold the rights of the detenue, as mandated by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act.

JUDGMENT :

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has assailed detention order bearing No.02/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 11.01.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag (for brevity "detaining authority"). In terms of the aforesaid order, Mohd Iqbal Koka(" the detenue") has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kothbalwal, Jammu, in order to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the security of the State/UT of J&K.

2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically 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, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case as whole of the material that formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents.

3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended 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 also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the 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) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights.

6) So far as the ground of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2024 has been rejected by the government and an intimation in this regard has been communicated by Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Anantnag in terms of communication No.Home/PB-V/19- 2023(7389997) dated 27.06.2024. In the said communication, the respondents have admitted receipt of the representation of the petitioner. Thus, it is admitted by the respondents that they have received the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention. The representation has been received by the respondents probably in the third week of March, 2024, which is clear from communication dated 23.03.2024, that forms part of the detention record. The question that arises for determination is, as to whether consideration of representation after about three months from the date of receipt of the same satisfies the requirement of law.

7) The aforesaid question has been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of “Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others ” (2021) 20 SCC 98 . It would be apt to refer to observations made by the Supreme Court in para 47 of the judgmen