JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No. PSA/139 dated 16.01.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua at its pre-execution stage. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of his powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

02. The ground urged for assailing the impugned order of detention that has been projected by the petitioner is that the respondents have not made any effort to execute the warrant of detention upon the petitioner though, he was very much available and in fact, he was appearing before the Court to face the criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No. 56/2024 for offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-(NDPS), 1985, before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua.

03. According to the petitioner, because of inaction of the respondents the impugned order has lost its proximity at pre-execution stage itself and the object that was proposed to be achieved by detaining the petitioner stands defeated which in turn casts a doubt about the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention.

04. The petitioner while relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of “A. Mohammed Farook Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 360 and judgment of this Court in the case of “Attaullah Malik Vs. State of J&K & Ors.” in OWP No. 884/2017 decided on 12.10.2023 has contended that because the detaining authority has not taken any steps for executing the impugned order of detention for a considerable period of time, as such, the impugned order of detention deserves to be quashed.

05. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in as many as three FIRs bearing Nos. 89/2022 of Police Station, Rajbagh; 56/2024 of Police Station, Rajbagh and 216/2024 of Police Station, Rajbagh.

06. It has been submitted that the detaining authority, after perusing the dossier and other documents produced by the Senior Superintendent of Police-(SSP), Kathua and keeping in view the continuous and repeated involvement of the petitioner in organized criminal activities like theft, drug peddling, smuggling and after application of mind, passed the impugned order of detention with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in activities which endanger the public order.

07. It has been submitted that the warrant of detention was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police-(SSP), Kathua for execution but the same could not be executed upon the petitioner because he has been evading his arrest. It has been further submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police-(SSP), Kathua vide communication dated 21.08.2025 has reported that detention order could not be executed as the petitioner is absconding and hiding himself to evade the process of law.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the detention record produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

09. As already narrated, the main and only ground that has been projected by the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention is that the respondents have not taken any steps towards execution of warrant of detention upon him nor have they taken any steps for getting the petitioner declared as an absconder, as such, delay in execution of warrant throws doubt upon the genuineness of subjective satisfaction to the detaining authority which in turn vitiates the impugned order of detention.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of “Additional Secretary to Government of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Alka Subash Gada and Anr.” 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496 has observed that the scope of judicial review of a detention order prior to its execution is