Fresh preventive detention order invalid if based substantially on grounds of previously quashed detention order; prior grounds cannot be considered even in part, requiring new fresh facts.

JUDGMENT :

M. A.CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention Order No. 01-DMG-PSA-2025 dated 05.04.2025 issued by District Magistrate, Ganderbal - respondent No. 2 (for short detaining authority) by virtue of which the petitioner (for short ‘detenue’) has been ordered to be detained under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) to prevent him from activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

1. It is stated in the petition that the detenue was initially arrested and was falsely implicated in FIR No. 199/2020 registered in Police Station, Ganderbal for the commission of offences under Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, 39 UA(P) Act and Section 7/25 IA Act, wherein he was bailed out. Thereafter, the detenue was called by the Police Station, Ganderbal and told that in view of incoming Independence Day and in view of ongoing Amarnath Ji Yatra he will have to be in custody for some days, however, the detenue was, thereafter, detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 vide detention Order No. 03/DMG/PSA of 2023 dated 10.08.2023; that the said order of detention was challenged by the detenue through the medium of writ petition HCP No. 116/2023 and the said order was quashed by virtue of the judgment dated 14.10.2024. It is further alleged that after 5½ months the detenue was detained vide another detention order arbitrarily, impugned in the instant petition; that the detenue has filed representation against his detention but the same has not been considered by the authorities.

2. The detenue has questioned the impugned order of detention inter alia on the grounds that the constitutional as well as procedural safeguards as envisaged under the Constitution of India as well as under the Public Safety Act have not been complied with by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. The material that has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been furnished to the detenue thereby depriving him of his valuable right of making effective representation against preventive detention. The order of detention has been passed after a gap of not more than 06 months, as such, the order of detention has been passed on stale grounds.

3. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, in which they have stated that the detenue has been detained, pursuant to the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 2 and while doing so, the procedural as well as statutory safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act, have been complied with by the respondents; that all the requisite documents have been supplied to the detenue, so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority and to the Government. The order of detention was executed and the detenue was taken into preventive custody after the contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the language which he fully understood and the detenue was also informed of his right to make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority found it necessary to detain the detenue under the Act to prevent him from the activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions.

5. Learned counsel for the detenue while reiterating the grounds of challenge, has vehemently argued that as the subsequent impugned order of detention has been passed substantially on the same gr