JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. 06-PSA of 2025 dated 13.06.2025 issued by District Magistrate, Udhampur- respondent No. 2 herein whereby the petitioner, namely, Makhan Lal @ Makhni has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

02. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the same has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind. It has been contended that there were no compelling reasons with the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention when the petitioner was already facing prosecution in some of the FIRs registered against him. According to the petitioner, the allegations leveled against him in the grounds of detention are fabricated and concocted and even if the same are taken to be true still then having regard to the nature of these allegations, it cannot be stated that activities of the petitioners are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It has been further contended that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. It has also been contended that representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention was considered belatedly by the respondents as a result of which the impugned detention order is vitiated.

03. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a hardened criminal involved in numerous cases of bovine smuggling and assault. It has been alleged that activities of the petitioner have disrupted public order and instilled fear among local citizen. According to the respondents, the petitioner, by forming a nexus with other criminals and organizing bovine smuggling operations, posed a threat to the co-existence of the community and his being at large could lead to disturbances and exacerbate the prevailing law and order situation in Udhampur district. It has been contended that impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority after drawing subjective satisfaction from the dossier submitted by the police authorities and the material on record after proper application of mind.

04. It has been further contended that all the statutory and constitutional imperatives have been adhered to by the respondents while detaining the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of detention. It has further been contended that grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in dogri language which he understands. Regarding the representation of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the same was considered and rejected by the Government, whereafter information was conveyed to the petitioner in terms of communication dated 04.08.2025. To lend support to their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking quashment of the impugned detention order has projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of the arguments was on the following grounds:

(i) That the activities in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved cannot form a basis for passing an order of preventive detention as the same, at worst, can have an effect on law and order but do not have potential to disturb the public order and (ii) That the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents with promptitude.

07. So far as the first ground projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the grounds of detention would reveal that the petitioner is shown to have been involved in as many as four FIRs. FIR No. 177/2