JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. PSA/165 dated 16.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua whereby he has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from continuing his criminal activities and to maintain public peace and order.

02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that whole of the material, forming the basis of grounds of detention, has not been furnished to him, which has deprived him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier of SSP, Kathua. It has also been contended the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner in a language which he understands. It has also been contended that activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot form a basis for passing of impugned order of detention on the ground that the same are prejudicial to the public order.

03. It has further been contended that that there has been unexplained delay in passing of the impugned detention order by the detaining authority inasmuch as dossier recommending detention of the petitioner was submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua on 16.05.2025 before the District Magistrate, Kathua but the impugned order of detention came to be passed after lapse of more than one month i.e., 16.06.2025.

04. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority viz respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that whole of the material, on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated, has been provided to the petitioner and contents of the same have been explained to the detenue in Hindi/Urdu language, which he understands. It has been further submitted that all the statutory and legal requirements were followed by the respondents while executing the detention order against the petitioner. The respondents have also produced detention record to lend support to their contentions.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record, which has been produced by the respondents.

06. Although the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on several grounds but main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order of detention was on following two grounds:

(i) that there has been unexplained delay in passing of the impugned detention order by the detaining authority inasmuch as dossier recommending detention of the petitioner was submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua on 16.05.2025 before the District Magistrate, Kathua but the impugned order of detention came to be passed after lapse of one month i.e., on16.06.2025;

(ii) that activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be termed as the activities prejudicial to the public order.

07. In the context of the first ground urged by the petitioner, it is to be noted that dossier, recommending detention of the petitioner, was forwarded by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua vide his communication dated 16.05.2025 whereas, the impugned order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua on16.06.2025. No explanation much less satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the detaining authority in his counter affidavit for the delay of one month in passing the impugned order of detention. The detention record also does not furnish any explanation in this regard. There has been no correspondence between the detaining authority and the sponsoring agency during this period of one month either to seek clarification or to seek further information with regard to the present case.

08. The issue as to what wou