JUDGMENT :

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

1. The petitioner, Basharat Ahmad Bazaz, acting through his mother Mst. Rafiqa Assad, has come to petition this Court with present writ petition filed on 18.09.2024, thereby assailing his preventive detention ordered vide impugned Order No. DMS/PSA/22/2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar, thereby subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 for the sake of preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of the security of the State.

2. A case for preventive detention of the petitioner was mooted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP) Srinagar, by virtue of dossier submitted vide Letter No. LGL/Det- PSA/2024/19451-54 dated 30.08.2024 notifying the alleged state of activities of the petitioner on the basis whereof the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty was reckoned by the District Police to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State.

3. Acting upon said dossier, respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar formulated the grounds of detention, thereby, purportedly drawing the subjective satisfaction that a case has been made out for effecting the preventive detention of the petitioner and, thus, ordering his preventive detention to take place by confining him to the Central Jail Srinagar.

4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has posed challenge to his detention on the grounds set out in para 3 (i to xv).

5. The petitioner submits that grounds of detention bear no nexus with the petitioner as the basis of the grounds of detention is fabrication by the police to somehow justify the consequent detention. In fact, the petitioner is meaning to say that detention was aimed against someone else rather than the petitioner and, thus, impugned order of detention is a case of mistaken identity. The grounds of detention are alleged to be vague and non-existent on the basis whereof no satisfaction, much less the subjective satisfaction, could have been drawn by the detention order making authority.

6. The grounds of detention are said to be lacking specificity. The petitioner submits that once he was subjected to preventive proceedings under section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 2 to come up with the drastic action of setting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 when petitioner had not breached any terms and conditions relatable to preventive proceedings against him so instituted under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It is being asserted that driving motive in effecting the preventive detention of the petitioner was relatable to the forthcoming Assembly election at the relevant point of time which came to take place and still petitioner is suffering incarceration in terms of his preventive detention custody.

7. The petitioner comes up with heavy weight submission that literally on the identical grounds he was first subjected to preventive detention in the year 2018 by virtue of an order No. DMS/PSA/37/2018 dated 16.11.2018 which was quashed by this court in HCP No. 438/2018 by virtue of judgment dated 30.05.2019 when it was held by this Court in its said judgment dated 30.05.2019 that there was no specific allegation relatable to petitioner to justify the ground of detention and consequent preventive detention.

8. Said judgment dated 30.05.2019 was never assailed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar and the petitioner at last had earned his lost personal liberty.

9. The grounds of detention this time supporting impugned detention order are being asserted as replica of the dossier, thereby reflecting upon a mechanical and run-of-the-mill application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar in acting on “dotted lines” as served by the District Police Srinagar with