Delayed execution of a detention order vitiates its legality unless satisfactorily explained, as established in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through his father for quashment of detention Order No. 109/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 09.10.2020 (for short “Impugned order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla-respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where under the petitioner/detenue namely, Mohammad Murtaza Bhat @ Aakash, S/O Atikullah Bhat R/O Sheikhpora Tujjar Sharief Sopore, Baramulla, has been detained by the Detaining Authority under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The impugned order is being challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds urged in the instant petition.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that none of the rights of the petitioner much less legal, fundamental or statutory have been infringed which would have entitled the petitioner to maintain the petition under reply. It is being admitted by the respondents that the petitioner came to be detained pursuant to the impugned order dated 09.10.2020, by the Detaining Authority after careful perusal of the dossier and other material furnished by the sponsoring agency, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the security of the State and came to be lodged in District Jail, Kupwara.

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

4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, notwithstanding the multiple grounds of challenge urged in the petition, the impugned order is vitiated on account of delayed execution of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his said submission referred to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case tilted K.P.M. Baseer v. State of Karnataka and Anr, reported in AIR 1992(SC) 1353.

Record reveals as also having been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed to the petition as well that the petitioner came to be arrested on 13^th April, 2020, in connection with FIR No. 03/2020, registered with Police Station Bomai and that the impugned order came to be passed on 09.10.2020 and executed on 27^th July, 2023.Neither the counter affidavit nor the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents offer any kind of explanation much less a satisfactory or reasonable are as to why the impugned order came to be executed after a considerable period of time, approximately after two years. In absence of such an explanation inasmuch as, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment K.P.M. Baseer v. State of Karnataka and Anr, supra, as also in the judgment titled as “Adishwar Jain v. Union of India and another, (2006) 11 SCC 339” delayed execution of detention order vitiates the same. At para 15 of the Adishwar Jain judgment supra, following has been held:-

“15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to be explained. The court is required to consider the question having regard to the overall picture. We may notice that in SK. Serajul v. State of West Bengal [(1975) 2 SCC 78], this Court opined:

"There was thus delay at both stages and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would be reasonable to assume that if the District Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promptitude both in making the order of detention as also in securing the arrest of the petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities..."

5. In view of the aforesaid factua