JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The appellant came to be detained pursuant to order of detention bearing No. 15/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.04.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama (respondent No. 2) in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The appellant challenged the said order of detention by way of HCP No. 136/2024, which, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”).

2. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025, the appellant has assailed the same on the following grounds: -

(i) That the learned writ Court has failed to consider and properly appreciate the grounds urged by the appellant in the writ petition, thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law.

(ii) That the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the contention of the appellant that the order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 without due application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, thereby vitiating the order of detention.

(iii) That the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the allegations set out in the grounds of detention had no nexus with the appellant and were fabricated by the police with the sole object of illegally detaining the appellant, thereby vitiating the impugned order of detention.

(iv) That it was specifically urged before the learned writ Court that the appellant had been implicated in FIR No. 57/2021 and was released on bail in February, 2022, and thereafter was not involved in any fresh unlawful activity warranting or necessitating his preventive detention; however, the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the said contention.

(v) That it was specifically submitted before the learned writ Court that the appellant was not furnished with the relevant material forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority, as reflected in the order of detention and the grounds of detention; however, the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the said contention, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment.

(vi) That the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted a representation against the order of detention, which was not considered and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law and within a reasonable time, thereby violating the constitutional safeguards available to the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had filed a representation against the order of detention to Government, but the same was not considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. It was further submitted that the appellant had earlier been proceeded against under Section 107 Cr.P.C., and upon his release, no fresh illegal activity was attributed to him so as to warrant his preventive detention under the Act. It was also contended that respondent No. 2 has failed to apply his mind while recording the requisite satisfaction, inasmuch as the appellant was never arrested in FIR No. 90/2020, but in FIR No. 57/2021, thereby reflecting non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned writ Court has rightly considered the contentions of the appellant and after considering the same only, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. He has further argued that the procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the Act were duly followed while issuing and executing the order of detention.

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

6. The record reveals that, pursuant to the dossier prepared by respondent No. 3, a proposal was submitted to respondent No. 2 for detaining the appella