JUDGMENT :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged detention Order No. DMK/PSA of 2024 dated 17.05.2024 (for short “ the Impugned order”) passed by the respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where-under the petitioner has been detained under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner 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, inter-alia, on the grounds that the petitioner came to be detained by the detaining authority in terms of the order under challenge after fulfilling all statutory requirements and complying with constitutional guarantees and that the said order was duly approved by the Government and upon execution of the same against the petitioner, the contents of the order and grounds were explained to the petitioner in Urdu and Kashmiri language which he fully understood and was also informed about making of a representation to the Government against his detention. It is further stated that since the material furnished to the detaining authority by the police concerned and intelligence agency contained credible inputs that petitioner is an associate of terrorist organization of HM outfit and is indulged in propagating secessionist- terrorist ideology amongst the youth of the area, the petitioner as such, was ordered to be detained, more-so when the petitioner despite being bound down under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure continued with his said illegal activities.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file including the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents.

4. According to Mr. N.A. Ronga, appearing counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority detained the petitioner without application of mind inasmuch as, deriving subjective satisfaction, in that, the detaining authority in the impugned order has stated that the activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and warrant immediate measures as normal law of the land has proved ineffective to deter him from indulging him from repeated acts of subversive activities of violence and the details of such activities were never spelt out in the grounds of detention, including the details of the recourse taken to any normal law applicable against the petitioner for such activities and that in fact none of the such laws were invoked against the petitioner and instead the petitioner came to be straightaway detained under the preventive law.

Mr. Ronga would further submit that the petitioner has read up to 9^th class not conversant with the English language in which the order and the grounds of detention were couched by the detaining authority, as such, could not make effective representation against his detention.

Mr. Ronga would lastly submit that the grounds of detention framed by the detaining authority for preventive detention of the petitioner are vague inasmuch as, non-existent having been made basis for preventive detention of the petitioner primarily on account of the relations of the petitioner who allegedly are settled in PoK.

5. Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA, in opposition to the submissions of Mr. Ronga would heavily rely upon the reply affidavit filed to the petition inasmuch as, the detention record produced for perusal of the Court today. Mr. Shah insisted, as such, for dismissal of the petition while reiterating that in the process of detaining of the petitioner, all statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees were adhered to and followed.

6. Before proceedings to advert to the rival submission of appearing counsel for the parties, it would be proper to refer hereunder to the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in regard t