ORDER :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing of detention order No. 08/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, Dated 20-04-2024 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by respondent 2 (for short “the detaining authority”) under and in terms of provisions of JK Public Safety Act 1978 (for short “the Act of 1978).

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition.

3. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner has been an Over Ground Worker(OGW) of the terrorist organization Let/TRF having been providing assistance in the year 2022-2023 to terrorists including one terrorist namely Mohammad Uzair Khan Khan, who got killed and that thereafter the petitioner though was bound down under relevant law and released on a surety bond yet the secret information received revealed that the petitioner after his release on a surety bond, has been in close touch and contact with OGW’s and other associates of the LeT out fit and that the detaining authority, after being furnished with the dossier and the said material thereto derived subjective to satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are pre-judicial to the security of the State/UT of Jammu and Kashmir, necessitating his preventive detention and consequently, ordered the detention of the petitioner in terms of order dated 20-04-2024, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, which is pre-judicial to the security of State/UT of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is further stated that upon preventive detention of the petitioner, the warrant of detention was executed on 24-04-2024 by ASI Surinder Kumar of Police Station Bejbehara, and the contents of the order of detention as well as and grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the language which he fully understood and in lieu thereof, the petitioner put his signatures on the execution report, while stating further that the entire material relied upon by the detaining authority for detention of the petitioner was furnished to the petitioner and was also informed of his right of making a representation against the order of detention to the District Magistrate and to the Government.

It is further stated that the Government approved the detention of the petitioner in terms of order dated 29-04-2024 and the advisory board as well expressed its opinion in favor of the detention of the petitioner on 14-05-2024, where after the order of detention came to be confirmed by the Government on 24-05-2024.

It is lastly stated that in the process of ordering of preventive detention of the petitioner, the detaining authority fulfilled and complied with all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The first ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner in line with the grounds urged in the petition while making his submissions is that the petitioner was not furnished the detention papers as also the material in the language he understood as he could not read and write English and that no activity post years 2022-2023 had been attributed to the petitioner necessitating his detention thereby there exists no proximate live link between the impugned order as well as the activities of the years 2022-2023. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the material relied upon by the detaining authority was not provided to him, as such, he was rendered incapable of making an effective representation against his detention as also on account of non-furnishing of the said material in the language he understood.

5. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents would controvert the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and, in support thereof, would heavily rely upon the counter affidavit filed to the petition as also detentio