JUDGMENT :

MOHD YOUSUF WANI, J.

1. Impugned in the instant petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through his brother is an order of detention bearing No. DMP/PSA/05 of 2025 dated: 11.06.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detaining Authority’ for short), while invoking his powers under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and lodged in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The petitioner-detenue has assailed the impugned detention order on the grounds, inter alia, that he is a citizen of India and a domicile of UT of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, within his rights to seek the enforcement of his constitutional as well as other legal/statutory rights; that he is of the age of 49 years and a permanent resident of Buni Khet (Dhooni Khet) District, Poonch, who has been falsely branded as a habitual bovine smuggler for managing his preventive detention; that the impugned detention order has not been passed on any proximate or compelling necessity but on generalized and unverified allegations; that the grounds of detention reflect his involvement in three case FIR’s out of which two cases have been disposed of and other one FIR No.0061/2025 dated 05.05.2025 u/s 233 BNS of P/S Surankote, is pending investigation; that the ld. Detaining Authority has mechanically acted on the police dossier without conducting any independent verification or otherwise applying its own mind in respect of the matter; that even if the allegations against him are supposed to be true for arguments sake, they still pertain to law and order violations and not to acts prejudicial to public order as alleged; that he was not furnished with the complete set of the detention record which has made him unable to make a timely representation against his detention order; that his detention is punitive in nature and camouflaged as preventive; that the impugned detention order is vitiated by procedural irregularities, absence of subjective satisfaction and colourable exercise of power by the Detaining Authority which make the same unconstitutional, illegal and liable to be set aside; that the grounds of detention are the verbatim of police dossier thereby indicating the non- application of mind by the learned Detaining Authority and that his illegal and unjustified detention tantamounts to the infringement of his Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondents through their counter affidavit filed by the learned Detaining Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 resisted the instant petition on the grounds that none of the legal, fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner-detenue have been infringed and the petition is utterly misconceived, false and frivolous deserving its dismissal. That the concerned SSP forwarded a dossier of activities of the petitioner to the answering respondent i.e. the Detaining Authority, making out a case for his detention being a habitual bovine smuggler in the area. That his escalating involvement in bovine smuggling characterized by a blatant disregard for the law, has profoundly disrupted the peaceful equilibrium of the region. That the actions of the petitioner-detenu are deeply detrimental to the public order, have instilled fear and animosity among the local population, disrupting the harmonious rhythm of community life. That the subjective satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority before ordering the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the incriminating material against the detenu. That the observance of the procedural safeguards by the detaining authority leaves little sc